coulomb/target-revenue
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Route breach-record naming policy through Commercial Use Agreement, not License

Browse source 
Revises V1C1 §7.4 per maintainer instruction: the License no longer sets a
named-by-default disclosure rule for published breach/termination records.
Instead, whether a Commercial Entitlement holder is named is governed
exclusively by the applicable Commercial Use Agreement — a bilaterally
negotiated contract where informed consent can actually be obtained. The
License itself only guarantees an anonymized Phase-and-category fallback
where no Commercial Use Agreement addresses it or none exists (e.g. a
noncommercial Section 2(c) breach).

This meaningfully reduces the License text's own legal exposure: the open
item is no longer "should the License name parties by default" but
"the not-yet-drafted Commercial Use Agreement template needs its own
naming/consent/data-protection clause" — recommended as a future
TRSL-CommercialUseAgreement-Draft.md deliverable, analogous to the CLA
recommendation already on record.

Updates Appendix A item 10, OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md Q12 item 5,
PRD FR-10, and TSD §4.1 to match.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-07-29 11:03:39 +02:00
parent 236ebc2509
commit c12a4043c4
5 changed files with 24 additions and 6 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md
View file

@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ Per `specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §14.2, every Trust Service component
| Attestation | Publish a signed statement once the ledger fold reaches zero | Requiring its own publication as a condition of conversion |
| Breach/Compliance Record | Publish the Licensor's breach notices, cure status, and termination determinations for a Phase, distinguishing `alleged` from `determined` (`specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md` §7.4) | Independently deciding whether a breach occurred — that determination is the Licensor's, or a dispute process's, never the Trust Service's own judgment |
**New in V1C1 (2026-07-29):** the Breach/Compliance Record component is a license-driven addition, not yet reflected in a Stage 0 schema — WP-0002 shipped before this clause existed. Schema and pure-fold treatment (if any is needed; this is a record-publication concern, not a Target-Ledger fold input) are deferred to the Trust Service PRD (`specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md` §11.1 item 8), not added retroactively to WP-0002's scope. The naming-policy question in V1C1 Appendix A item 10 must be resolved before this component's public/confidential evidence tiering (§14.5) can be finalized.
**New in V1C1 (2026-07-29):** the Breach/Compliance Record component is a license-driven addition, not yet reflected in a Stage 0 schema — WP-0002 shipped before this clause existed. Schema and pure-fold treatment (if any is needed; this is a record-publication concern, not a Target-Ledger fold input) are deferred to the Trust Service PRD (`specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md` §11.1 item 8), not added retroactively to WP-0002's scope. The License itself sets the public/confidential default (anonymized Phase-and-category record unless a Commercial Use Agreement provides for named disclosure — V1C1 §7.4); the still-open item is drafting that Commercial Use Agreement's own naming/consent clause (V1C1 Appendix A item 10), not this component's evidence tiering.
---