Create TREV-WP-0004: global jurisdictional research plan
Backs the License/Commercial Use Agreement V1C1 candidates with a research
plan covering Germany, the rest of the EU, the US, the UK, Argentina (Latin
America anchor), India, China, representative African jurisdictions,
representative Asia-Pacific jurisdictions beyond India/China, and a
cross-cutting global choice-of-law/choice-of-forum strategy task.
Ten tasks: T01-T08 one per jurisdiction/family, T09 the cross-cutting
choice-of-law mechanism ("wherever"), T10 a synthesis that proposes (but
does not itself apply, per the human-accept gate) resolutions for the
governing-law, liability-cap, indemnification, and data-protection Appendix
A items in both V1C1 documents. Deliberately scoped as multiple targeted
tasks rather than one generic "international law" task, since prior
research already showed enforceability norms diverge in ways that don't
compress into a single finding (German AGB law covers B2B, EU consumer law
doesn't).
This workplan is planning only — no research has been executed yet.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
7b244df858
commit
b90b9490ef
4 changed files with 269 additions and 4 deletions
|
|
@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ Extracted and stabilized from the concept draft under `workplans/TREV-WP-0003-no
|
|||
| [TREV-WP-0001](workplans/TREV-WP-0001-license-prior-art-research.md) | Prior-art research (T01–T05 done, archived to `history/`) → TRSL V1C1 license candidate (T06 ready for human review) |
|
||||
| [TREV-WP-0002](workplans/TREV-WP-0002-trust-service-foundation.md) | Schemas, pure Outstanding Target fold, golden fixture — **finished** |
|
||||
| [TREV-WP-0003](workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md) | Extract stable normative core docs — T01–T05 done, T06 human review open |
|
||||
| [TREV-WP-0004](workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md) | Global jurisdictional research backing the License/CUA candidates (Germany/EU, US, UK, Argentina, India, China, Africa, Asia-Pacific, choice-of-law) — planned, not started |
|
||||
|
||||
Hub index: [`WORK-RECORDS.md`](WORK-RECORDS.md) · brief: [`.custodian-brief.md`](.custodian-brief.md)
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -191,11 +191,11 @@ This appendix is not part of the operative agreement text. It tracks what must b
|
|||
|
||||
| # | Section | Item | Status | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 1 | §18 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | Should be resolved jointly with License §11.1 Appendix A item 6 — a Phase's License and its Commercial Use Agreement(s) should ordinarily share a governing law. |
|
||||
| 1 | §18 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | Should be resolved jointly with License §11.1 Appendix A item 6 — a Phase's License and its Commercial Use Agreement(s) should ordinarily share a governing law. Global research and proposed resolution tracked in `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md` T09–T10. |
|
||||
| 2 | §6 | Audit rights scope, frequency, and cost allocation | **[LEGAL]** | Drafted from common convention, not dedicated research; no WP-0001 task covered commercial-audit norms. |
|
||||
| 3 | §14 | Liability cap methodology (fees-paid-in-12-months) | **[LEGAL]** | Common default, not verified against target jurisdictions. |
|
||||
| 3 | §14 | Liability cap methodology (fees-paid-in-12-months) | **[LEGAL]** | Common default, not verified against target jurisdictions. Per-jurisdiction enforceability tracked in `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md` (T01–T08 risk matrix, T10 synthesis). |
|
||||
| 4 | §13 | Indemnification clause — currently unwritten | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** — highest priority in this document | Deliberately left blank rather than guessed; a wrong default here carries real financial exposure. |
|
||||
| 5 | §11 | Data Protection — placeholder only, no operative processing terms | **[LEGAL]** | Likely needs a separate Data Processing Addendum, not inline clauses. |
|
||||
| 5 | §11 | Data Protection — placeholder only, no operative processing terms | **[LEGAL]** | Likely needs a separate Data Processing Addendum, not inline clauses. Per-jurisdiction data-protection regimes (GDPR, PIPL, DPDP Act, POPIA, APPI, etc.) tracked in `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md` T01–T08. |
|
||||
| 6 | §9 | Breach-disclosure election mechanism (opt-in, notice period, dispute window) | **[LEGAL]** | First-pass design satisfying License §7.4's informed-consent goal; not legally reviewed. |
|
||||
| 7 | §1, §17 | Standard commercial blanks: Affiliate control test, late-payment terms, cross-jurisdictional enforceability of the incorporation-by-reference order of precedence | **[LEGAL]** | Routine drafting, still unresolved. |
|
||||
| 8 | §8, §12 | Support/services terms and any associated warranty — reserved, not drafted | **[OPEN]** | Depends on whether a project bundles support here or in a separate Operations and Service Agreement. |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ This appendix is not part of the operative license text. It tracks what must be
|
|||
| 3 | §1, §2 | Exact scope of "Noncommercial Use" | **[LEGAL]** | `history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md` §3.3 |
|
||||
| 4 | §4 | Patent license clause text, review against local patent law | **[LEGAL]** | `history/260729-TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md` §4 |
|
||||
| 5 | §7 | Whether a cured breach should generate a compensating Target Ledger entry | **[OPEN]** | — |
|
||||
| 6 | §11.1 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` §2–§3 |
|
||||
| 6 | §11.1 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` §2–§3; broader global research and proposed resolution tracked in `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md` T09–T10 |
|
||||
| 7 | (all) | Full review under German AGB law (Transparenzgebot) and, where applicable, EU consumer-protection law | **[LEGAL]** | `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` §1–§2 |
|
||||
| 8 | (all) | Contributor rights sufficient to grant this License and the Future License (CLA) | **[LEGAL]**, separate deliverable | `history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md` §4 |
|
||||
| 9 | (all) | Full specialist legal review in every jurisdiction of intended use | **[LEGAL]** | `specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §21.5 |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
264
workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md
Normal file
264
workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,264 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004
|
||||
type: workplan
|
||||
title: "Global jurisdictional research for TRSL and Commercial Use Agreement"
|
||||
domain: infotech
|
||||
repo: target-revenue
|
||||
status: active
|
||||
owner: claude
|
||||
topic_slug: infotech
|
||||
created: "2026-07-29"
|
||||
updated: "2026-07-29"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Global jurisdictional research for TRSL and Commercial Use Agreement
|
||||
|
||||
Backs `specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md` (and, where shared,
|
||||
`specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md`) with jurisdictional research
|
||||
broad enough to support real commercial deployment across Germany, the rest
|
||||
of Europe, the United States, the United Kingdom, Argentina (as an anchor
|
||||
for Latin America), India, China, representative African jurisdictions,
|
||||
representative Asia-Pacific jurisdictions beyond India/China, and a
|
||||
cross-cutting global choice-of-law strategy for "wherever else."
|
||||
|
||||
**This workplan produces research artifacts, not final legal text.** Per
|
||||
`SCOPE.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md`, no output of this workplan may be treated
|
||||
as legal advice or as resolving an Appendix A item in either V1C1 document
|
||||
without specialist counsel review and the same human-accept gate already
|
||||
applied to those documents.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this scope, not a single "international law" task:** contract
|
||||
enforceability, standard-terms/consumer-protection exposure, data-protection
|
||||
obligations, and liability-cap/indemnification enforceability vary by legal
|
||||
family and by jurisdiction in ways that do not compress into one generic
|
||||
finding (`history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` already
|
||||
surfaced one such divergence: German AGB law covers B2B contracts, EU
|
||||
consumer law does not). Each task below targets one jurisdiction or a small
|
||||
family of closely related ones, plus one cross-cutting task for the
|
||||
choice-of-law/choice-of-forum mechanism a genuinely global template needs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Relationship to prior research:** `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md`
|
||||
(WP-0001-T05) already covers Germany (§31/§32 UrhG, §307 BGB) and a first
|
||||
EU/US comparison at a shallow level. Tasks T01 and T02 below deepen and
|
||||
formalize that groundwork rather than repeating it from scratch.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable convention:** each task produces a dated research artifact
|
||||
under `history/` (following the WP-0001 pattern — see
|
||||
`workplans/TREV-WP-0001-license-prior-art-research.md` and its archived
|
||||
`history/260729-TRSL-*.md` files), not a living `specs/` document. Only the
|
||||
synthesis task (T10) updates `specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md`
|
||||
Appendix A and `specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md` Appendix A directly.
|
||||
|
||||
## Deepen Germany and extend to EU-wide harmonization
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T01
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Extend `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` (German AGB/
|
||||
Transparenzgebot, already primary-source-confirmed for §31/§32 UrhG) to
|
||||
cover: EU-wide contract-law harmonization instruments relevant to a B2B
|
||||
commercial agreement (e.g. Rome I Regulation choice-of-law rules for
|
||||
contracts, the EU Late Payment Directive, EU product-liability and
|
||||
liability-cap enforceability norms across member states); confirm whether
|
||||
`specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md` §14's fees-paid-in-12-
|
||||
months liability cap is enforceable under German and representative EU
|
||||
member-state law; and produce concrete recommendations for §11 (Data
|
||||
Protection) under the EU/UK GDPR, since the current CUA text is a
|
||||
placeholder acknowledging the obligation without operative terms.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Germany-EU.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## United States
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T02
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Deepen the shallow US comparison already flagged in
|
||||
`history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` §3. Research: UCC
|
||||
Article 2 and state-law variance relevant to software licensing (noting at
|
||||
least California, New York, and Delaware as commonly-chosen commercial
|
||||
jurisdictions); the unconscionability doctrine's procedural-plus-substantive
|
||||
bar versus Germany's Transparenzgebot (already noted as a real asymmetry);
|
||||
enforceability of liability caps and indemnification clauses; enforceability
|
||||
of arbitration and class-action-waiver clauses; and state-level consumer
|
||||
and data-privacy law exposure (e.g. California CCPA/CPRA) for any Customer
|
||||
that could be characterized as a consumer despite the Commercial Use
|
||||
gate (working default Q2 edge case).
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-US.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## United Kingdom
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T03
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Research UK contract law post-Brexit divergence from the EU baseline:
|
||||
the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977's reasonableness test for liability
|
||||
caps and exclusion clauses (a different mechanism from both German
|
||||
Transparenzgebot and US unconscionability); UK GDPR as it has diverged
|
||||
from EU GDPR since Brexit; and enforceability of a non-UK governing-law/
|
||||
venue clause in UK courts for a commercial (non-consumer) contract.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-UK.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Latin America (Argentina anchor)
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T04
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Research Argentine civil-law contract norms (Código Civil y Comercial),
|
||||
the Ley de Defensa del Consumidor's applicability boundary (parallel to the
|
||||
EU/Germany B2B-vs-consumer question already surfaced), Argentina's Personal
|
||||
Data Protection Law and its EU-adequacy status, and enforceability of
|
||||
foreign choice-of-law/choice-of-forum clauses in Argentine courts. Note
|
||||
where Argentina is representative of broader Latin American civil-law
|
||||
patterns and where it is not, so this task is not silently over-generalized
|
||||
to the whole region.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Argentina.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## India
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T05
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Research the Indian Contract Act 1872's treatment of liability limitation
|
||||
and indemnification clauses, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023's
|
||||
requirements relevant to CUA §11, Indian courts' historical approach to
|
||||
enforcing foreign governing-law and choice-of-forum clauses in commercial
|
||||
contracts, and any India-specific software-licensing precedent relevant to
|
||||
a source-available/delayed-conversion model.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-India.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## China
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T06
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Research the contract provisions of China's Civil Code, the Personal
|
||||
Information Protection Law (PIPL)'s data-localization and cross-border
|
||||
transfer requirements (materially stricter than GDPR and likely to require
|
||||
a distinct data-processing approach for CUA §11 rather than a shared
|
||||
clause), and — specifically flagged as a likely hard constraint rather
|
||||
than a drafting nicety — the limited willingness of Chinese courts to
|
||||
enforce a foreign governing-law or venue clause in a domestic commercial
|
||||
relationship. Produce a recommendation on whether a China-specific
|
||||
addendum or rider (rather than a shared global clause) is the realistic
|
||||
path for Chinese Customers.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-China.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Africa (representative jurisdictions)
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T07
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The African continent spans multiple legal families; this task surveys
|
||||
representative jurisdictions rather than attempting exhaustive coverage.
|
||||
Research: South Africa as a common-law anchor (POPIA data-protection law,
|
||||
liability-cap enforceability under South African contract law); the OHADA
|
||||
harmonized business-law zone as a civil-law anchor for Francophone West and
|
||||
Central Africa (uniform commercial-contract acts); and flag which other
|
||||
major economies (e.g. Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt) would need their own dedicated
|
||||
research before this template is used there, rather than assuming the two
|
||||
anchors generalize.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Africa.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Asia-Pacific (beyond India and China)
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T08
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Research representative Asia-Pacific jurisdictions: Singapore (common-law
|
||||
commercial hub, PDPA data protection, strong arbitral-award enforcement
|
||||
tradition — relevant to T09's choice-of-forum strategy); Japan (civil-law
|
||||
major economy, Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI));
|
||||
and Australia (common-law, Australian Consumer Law's unfair-contract-terms
|
||||
regime for standard-form small-business contracts, relevant given the
|
||||
Commercial Use Agreement is exactly such a standard-form contract).
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-AsiaPacific.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Global choice-of-law, choice-of-forum, and dispute-resolution strategy
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T09
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Cross-cutting research, independent of any single jurisdiction, on how a
|
||||
genuinely global commercial template chooses governing law and dispute
|
||||
resolution: comparative enforceability of foreign court judgments versus
|
||||
arbitral awards under the New York Convention (1958) across the
|
||||
jurisdictions in T01–T08; practical neutral-seat arbitration clause
|
||||
patterns used by comparable international commercial/software agreements;
|
||||
and drafting principles for producing contract language that reads clearly
|
||||
under multiple clarity standards at once (Germany's Transparenzgebot, UK's
|
||||
UCTA reasonableness test, and plain-language norms generally), rather than
|
||||
optimizing for one jurisdiction's standard at the expense of others. This
|
||||
task directly feeds License Appendix A item 6 and CUA Appendix A item 1,
|
||||
which are explicitly linked (the License and its Commercial Use Agreement
|
||||
should ordinarily share a governing law).
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-GlobalChoiceOfLaw-Strategy.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Synthesis: jurisdictional risk matrix and Appendix A resolution
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T10
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
human_accept_required: true
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Using T01–T09, produce a consolidated jurisdictional risk matrix (one row
|
||||
per jurisdiction/family, columns for: standard-terms clarity regime,
|
||||
liability-cap enforceability, indemnification norms, data-protection
|
||||
regime, and foreign governing-law/venue enforceability) and use it to:
|
||||
|
||||
- propose a resolution for License Appendix A item 6 and CUA Appendix A
|
||||
item 1 (governing law and venue), including whether a single global
|
||||
clause is realistic or whether jurisdiction-specific addenda (at minimum
|
||||
for China, per T06) are required;
|
||||
- propose resolutions for CUA Appendix A items 3 (liability cap), 4
|
||||
(indemnification), and 5 (data protection), or state plainly that they
|
||||
remain open pending counsel;
|
||||
- update both V1C1 documents' Appendix A tables to reflect what this
|
||||
workplan resolved versus what remains genuinely open.
|
||||
|
||||
**Human accept gate:** per the same policy already applied to the V1C1
|
||||
documents (`CONTRIBUTING.md`), any Appendix A item this task proposes to
|
||||
mark resolved requires explicit human acceptance before the corresponding
|
||||
V1C1 document treats it as settled. Agents may prepare the synthesis and
|
||||
proposed Appendix A edits and leave this task `todo` — "ready for review,"
|
||||
not done.
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Synthesis.md`, plus
|
||||
proposed (not yet applied) edits to both V1C1 documents' Appendix A tables.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue