diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 1d7b64e..924a437 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -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) diff --git a/specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md b/specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md index 2472682..e6f7cdd 100644 --- a/specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md +++ b/specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.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. | diff --git a/specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md b/specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md index 553cfb7..22e9bb3 100644 --- a/specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md +++ b/specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md @@ -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 | diff --git a/workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md b/workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b6f115c --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md @@ -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/-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/-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/-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/-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/-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/-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/-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/-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/-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/-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Synthesis.md`, plus +proposed (not yet applied) edits to both V1C1 documents' Appendix A tables.