Maintainer decision (2026-07-29): full specialist legal review of the
TRSL/CUA is postponed until the framework moves out of beta, given
limited legal/commercial exposure during build/alpha. WP-0004-T10 and
WP-0005-T10 synthesize their jurisdiction research into adopted alpha/beta
working defaults (governing law -> arbitration at a neutral seat,
liability cap, data protection minimal-collection practice, and the
Enforcement Network's fee mechanics) rather than full resolution, and are
accepted on that basis. Propagates the decision to the License/CUA V1C1
Appendix A tables and status banners, SCOPE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, the
WP-0008-T05 go-live gate, and README.md.
Bernd reviewed the License candidate and accepted it, conditioned on one
refinement to §1's "Commercial Use" definition: replaces the prior
circular definition ("use other than Noncommercial Use") with an
objective, billing-based trigger. Commercial Use now means billing a
customer for pre-conversion Software use, full stop - regardless of
whether the resulting payment is registered with the Trust Service.
Billing without recording the payment in the Target Ledger is Commercial
Use without a valid Commercial Entitlement, a Section 3 violation
addressed under Section 7 and, where applicable, the Enforcement Network.
This substantially resolves the affiliate/contractor/mixed-purpose/
public-sector ambiguity Appendix A item 1 flagged, since classification
no longer depends on who the customer is, only on whether they are
billed. A narrower residual item remains open: whether consumer-
protection law overrides this classification for an individual/sole-
proprietor customer in a given jurisdiction (the same recurring pattern
found across WP-0004's jurisdiction research).
Updates the document's status banner: condition 3 (human acceptance) is
now met; conditions 1 (specialist legal review) and 2 (full Appendix A
resolution) remain open - V1C1 is accepted as adequate briefing material
for counsel, not yet official Version 1.0. Marks WP-0001-T06 done and the
WP-0001 workplan finished (all 6 tasks complete). Updates
OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md Q2, README, and CONTRIBUTING.md to match.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Cross-cutting research (New York Convention enforceability, neutral-seat
arbitration practice, and a consolidated drafting principle) revises the
China finding from T06/TREN-T06: China has enforced the New York
Convention since 1986 (arbitral awards travel via a ~172-state regime
with limited refusal grounds) but has ratified no foreign-judgment
convention, relying on patchy bilateral treaties and evolving reciprocity
for court judgments specifically. Arbitration, not the litigation-focused
China rider previously recommended, is likely the more promising
enforceability path for a Chinese Customer - and for the Enforcement
Partner Agreement too, per a cross-reference added to
specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md.
Also produces a consolidated drafting principle: write clarity-sensitive
clauses to satisfy Germany's Transparenzgebot, UK's UCTA reasonableness,
and Australia's expanded Unfair Contract Terms regime simultaneously,
since research this program has already found separately shows none of
the three reduces to another.
Updates License Appendix A item 6 and CUA Appendix A item 1 accordingly.
WP-0004 now has 9 of 10 tasks done; only the human-gated T10 synthesis
remains.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Executes all remaining shared jurisdictions across both workplans:
Germany/EU (deepened contract-law angle), US (deepened), UK (deepened),
Argentina, India, China, Africa (South Africa + OHADA), and Asia-Pacific
(Singapore, Japan, Australia) - 13 new history/ research artifacts.
Highest-priority findings:
- Australia's Unfair Contract Terms regime (expanded Nov 2023) covers
standard-form contracts with any business under 100 employees/$10M
turnover by default - the CUA is exactly such a contract, and most
realistic Customers fall within this threshold. Unlike every other
jurisdiction's consumer carve-out, this is not an edge case.
- China requires a "foreign-related" contract even to select foreign
governing law, subject to a vague public-interest override even then -
confirms a dedicated China rider is needed for both the License/CUA and
the Enforcement Partner Agreement, not a shared global clause.
- India flatly prohibits advocate contingency fees (no exception gates,
stricter than Germany) while explicitly permitting third-party
litigation funding - the cleanest confirmation yet that the Litigation
Funder/Local Counsel split-role model is both necessary and legal there.
- Japan's Article 12 fee-splitting rule means even the split-role
fallback needs jurisdiction-specific structuring - the first case where
the workaround itself, not just the original mechanism, has an open
compliance question.
- Contingency Share ceilings vary widely where available: UK 50% (exact
match), South Africa 25%, Argentina 35% (50% only with risk assumption),
China 18% down to 6% on a sliding scale that shrinks as claims grow.
- Recurring cross-jurisdictional pattern (Germany, EU, US via CCPA,
Argentina): B2B governing-law/liability clauses are respected, but an
individual/sole-proprietor Customer's consumer-protection status is the
operative risk everywhere, not a one-off edge case.
Updates specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §8.1 with a full 12-jurisdiction
findings table and three cross-cutting conclusions. Updates both V1C1
documents' Appendix A items (governing law, liability cap, data
protection) with the most consequential findings. Both workplans now have
only their human-gated synthesis tasks (T09-T10 / T10) remaining.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
Adds specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md, the companion
agreement the License repeatedly refers to but never itself set terms
for: commercial entitlement grant, fees and explicit Development Credit
allocation, applicable monetization extensions, metering, audit rights,
term/termination (cross-referenced to License §7.2/§5.2 so a Commercial
Use Agreement termination can never revoke an already-converted Milestone
Release), and a real Section 9 implementing the informed-consent breach-
disclosure election that License §7.4 deferred here: opt-in named
disclosure vs. an anonymized default, a 10-business-day pre-publication
notice with a dispute window, and a data-protection carve-out.
Unlike the License, this Agreement had no dedicated prior-art research
pass (WP-0001 T01-T05 covered license models, terminology, patents,
contributor rights, and jurisdiction constraints, not commercial-agreement
drafting norms) — its preliminary notice says so explicitly, and Appendix A
leaves Section 13 (Indemnification) unwritten rather than guess at a
default carrying real financial exposure.
Corrects three prior references from the placeholder filename
"TRSL-CommercialUseAgreement-Draft.md" to the actual deliverable name, and
cross-references it from README, PRD, TSD, and SCOPE.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
Per maintainer request after reviewing V1C1: breaches and their resolution
are transparently published via the Trust Service, giving the ecosystem a
conformity signal and creating reputational pressure toward compliance
alongside the existing commercial remedies.
- V1C1 §7.4 (new): Trust Service publishes the Licensor's breach notices,
cure status, and termination determinations per Phase, distinguishing
"alleged" from "determined" — a ministerial recording act, not a new
discretionary authority (consistent with §5.4's evidence-not-cause
principle). Named-by-default disclosure is the intended mechanism (the
deterrent only works if the party is identifiable), flagged in Appendix A
item 10 as the single most legally sensitive addition in this candidate:
it touches Commercial Use Agreement confidentiality, defamation law, and
data-protection law where the affected party is an individual.
- TSD §4.1: new Breach/Compliance Record Trust Service component, noted as
license-driven and deferred to a future Trust Service PRD rather than
retrofitted into WP-0002's already-finished Stage 0 scope.
- OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md Q12: records the adopted default (publish
alleged/determined breach status) and the still-open naming-policy question.
- PRD FR-10: cross-references the new public record without resolving the
naming question.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Persists the five prior-art/legal research artifacts and the original
draft skeleton as dated history/ records (260729- prefix, git mv to
preserve history), consistent with this repo's convention that history/
holds dated non-normative artifacts rather than living working documents:
- history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Terminology-Guardrails.md
- history/260729-TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md
- history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md
- history/260729-TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md (superseded)
Adds specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md: the first candidate written
as actual operative license text (11 sections: definitions, noncommercial
grant, commercial-use restriction, patent license, automatic conversion,
successive phases, termination/cure, warranty/liability, trademarks,
general provisions) rather than a bracket-annotated skeleton. Carries a
prominent preliminary-status notice near the top and a non-normative
Appendix A tracking the nine items still needing legal resolution before
any candidate can become official Version 1.0.
Updates all cross-references (README, PRD, TSD, SCOPE, workplan) to the
new paths; the workplan's T06 human-accept gate now points at V1C1.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
