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>
Per maintainer correction: the previous "Standard Bounty Amount" was still
paid only on success, meaning it remained outcome-contingent and would not
actually escape prohibitions worded around outcome-contingency generally
(India's Rule 20: "a fee contingent on the results of litigation") rather
than percentage-proportionality specifically (Germany's quota-litis-style
rules). Renamed to "Standard Financing Amount" and restructured as a fixed
sum paid or made available regardless of the Enforcement Action's outcome
- a grant toward litigation cost, not a contingent fee in any form.
specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §13 rewritten as a sequential rule
rather than "higher of two comparable numbers" (contingent percentages and
non-contingent financing are not commensurable, and treating them as
interchangeable is exactly what would make the financing look like a
disguised contingent fee):
1. 50% Contingency Share where lawful at that level.
2. Else the jurisdiction's own lower lawful outcome-contingent cap.
3. Else - no lawful outcome-contingent fee exists at all - no
Contingency Share; the Licensor's own non-contingent fee arrangement
with its lawyer governs what's owed win or lose, and the Trust
Service's Standard Financing Amount offsets that cost regardless of
outcome. Fee risk is genuinely higher here, by design: this is what
it means for the risk-shifting a contingent fee normally provides to
be unavailable, not an oversight to paper over.
New §13.0 makes explicit (per maintainer instruction) that nothing in this
rule creates a right for the Trust Service, an Enforcement Partner, or a
Litigation Funder to initiate a case - pressing charges remains
exclusively the Licensor's decision. The rule only makes a ready,
low-friction default (published caps, financing, EPA template) available
once that decision is made.
Added new core term §5.9 Standard Financing Amount; updated §5.5-5.7, §6's
lifecycle step, §9's EPA outline, and the concise definition to match.
Updated WP-0005 T10's synthesis scope and README accordingly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Per maintainer request, replaces the flat "working default 50%" Contingency
Share with a systematic per-jurisdiction rule, directly responding to
WP-0005's finding that 50% is unsafe almost everywhere except the UK:
1. 50% applies if lawful in the jurisdiction.
2. Otherwise, the higher of:
(A) the Jurisdiction Percentage Cap - the actual local statutory
maximum, published by the Enforcement Registry as background
information for prospective Enforcement Partners; or
(B) a Standard Bounty Amount - a fixed sum (not a percentage),
defaulting to $1,000 local-currency-equivalent, recalculated
annually to 50% of the trailing-18-month average unpaid-fees
amount where more than 10 settled cases exist (a sample-size floor
to avoid thin-sample noise), announced by 31 July, effective the
following 1 January, always capped at the specific case's own
unpaid fees.
Flags, as the highest-priority open question this rule itself introduces:
whether a fixed, non-percentage bounty actually escapes contingency-fee
prohibitions worded around outcome-contingency generally (India's Rule 20:
"contingent on the results of litigation") rather than percentage-
proportionality specifically (Germany's quota-litis-style rules) - the
Standard Bounty Amount may not solve what it was designed to solve in
exactly the jurisdictions that motivated it, and this is not yet verified.
Added as new specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §13 (Concise Definition
renumbered §14; no other section numbers changed, so existing cross-
references to §5.5/§6/§8/§9/§11 from workplans and history/ artifacts
remain valid). Updated §5.5, §5.7, and §8's key findings to point to the
new rule. Folded the rule's population and open questions into
WP-0005-T10's synthesis scope.
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>
Introduces specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md: independent, locally-licensed
Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use (License §3
violations) in their home jurisdiction for a Contingency Share of Recovery,
so enforcement scales the way the framework's monetization already does -
through aligned incentive rather than central litigation capacity. New
terminology (Alleged Violation, Enforcement Action, Recovery, Contingency
Share, Platform Share, Enforcement Registry, Enforcement Partner Agreement)
plus a proposed enforcement-recovery Monetization Extension so Recovery
flows into Development Credit through the existing accounting model rather
than a parallel bucket.
Flags the mechanism's central risk up front rather than assuming it away:
lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere. Backed by
workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md (10 tasks); four
executed this session with live web research:
- Germany/EU: RVG §4a permits contingency fees only in three narrow gates,
none fitting this fact pattern well - single-role Enforcement Partner is
very likely not viable; France permits a fixed-fee-plus-uncapped-result-
fee structure instead; EU litigation-funding regulation is proposed
(2022 EP resolution) but not yet adopted.
- US: contingency fees broadly permitted; practical precondition is timely
copyright registration of the Milestone Release to unlock statutory
damages/fee-shifting; Copyright Claims Board flagged as a lower-cost venue.
- UK: Damages-Based Agreements cap fees at 50% for this case category -
the concept's originally-proposed 50% Contingency Share lands exactly on
this real statutory ceiling, the first jurisdiction where the figure is
precisely validated rather than arbitrary.
- Mechanism design: synthesizes the above into a single Enforcement Partner
Agreement template with jurisdiction-conditional role structure
(single-role vs. Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split), with a payment-
flow diagram showing the Development Credit allocation is unaffected by
which structure applies.
Six of ten WP-0005 tasks remain open (Argentina, India, China, Africa,
Asia-Pacific, and the human-gated synthesis). Cross-referenced from README.
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>
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>
Moves TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md from the separate singular spec/
directory into specs/ (git mv, preserving history) and updates every live
cross-reference (README, CONTRIBUTING, all specs/*.md, workplans, schema
comments, source docstrings, test file) to the new path.
This resolves the spec/ vs specs/ split that history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md
flagged as a "perpetual footgun" and recommended deciding on. The historical
record of that split and the recommendation itself are left unedited in
history/ (a dated assessment, not a living document) — only README and TSD
now document the merge as resolved, with a pointer back to that history file
for context.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five research artifacts under specs/research/, grounded in primary-source
license text fetched live rather than relying on training-data recall:
- TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md: BSL 1.1, FSL, PolyForm Noncommercial, Fair
Source, Elastic License 2.0. Confirms TRSL's closed {MIT, Apache-2.0}
Future License enum and no per-Phase custom license text follows FSL's
deliberate fix for BSL's "Additional Use Grant" variability problem.
- TRSL-Terminology-Guardrails.md: confirms via OSI OSD Clause 6 that
pre-conversion TRSL cannot be Open Source; confirms README's existing
guardrail table without change.
- TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md: MIT has no patent language; Apache
2.0 has an explicit contribution-scoped grant + litigation termination.
Recommends TRSL's pre-conversion phase also carry an express patent grant.
- TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md: confirms via DCO 1.1 text that a DCO
alone is insufficient for TRSL's dual-future-license promise; recommends
a narrowly-scoped CLA over copyright assignment.
- TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md: deepens German §31/§32 UrhG (primary-
confirmed) and §307 BGB Transparenzgebot (secondary-confirmed, flagged
for counsel verification); corrects scope re: EU UCTD 93/13/EEC being
consumer-only vs. German AGB law covering B2B too. Ranks five terms most
needing objective definitions.
specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md (T06) synthesizes all five into a
non-binding skeleton with every clause tagged [CONFIRMED BY RESEARCH],
[LEGAL], [WORKING DEFAULT], or [OPEN]. Per the T06 human-accept gate, the
workplan task stays `todo` — ready for review, not accepted.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Stabilizes day-to-day terminology out of the exploratory concept draft:
- specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md — core terms, target formula,
five-verb lifecycle, nine rules, invariants.
- specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md — field tiers aligned with
schemas/phase_manifest.schema.json.
- specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md — entry types, hash chain, pure
Outstanding Target fold, aligned with the WP-0002 library.
- specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md — six-field contract,
registered/canonical distinction, Stage 0 Q11 catalog.
Cross-links PRD/TSD/README/CONTRIBUTING to the new extracts, confirms no
placeholder tails remain, and prepares a review checklist for T06 (human
promotion gate, left open pending maintainer review).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Delivers the offline runnable specification foundation for the Trust Layer
(TSD §3-§6), not a hosted Trust Service:
- JSON Schemas for Phase Manifest, Ledger Entry, Extension Contract, and
Conversion Attestation, encoding the Stage 0 working defaults (Q3 future
license enum, Q6 single-currency Phases, Q8 required longstop_at).
- src/target_revenue: pure Outstanding Target fold, SHA-256 hash-chain
verification, Ed25519 signing helpers, extension conformance checks
(including a core-term-redefinition heuristic), and conversion detection
that never requires an attestation document to determine conversion status.
- examples/phase-001: golden Phase package matching the concept doc's
worked example, generated via scripts/generate_golden_phase.py so the
hash chain is computed by the library itself, not hand-typed.
- 32 passing pytest tests covering manifest/ledger/extension conformance,
tamper/reorder detection, and the full lifecycle fold to conversion.
- docs/adr/ADR-0001: proposed (not accepted) Stage 0 stack choice, per the
WP-0002-T01 human-accept gate — implementation proceeded against the
proposal as the workplan note permits, but the task stays open.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Introduce SCOPE, expanded README, CONTRIBUTING, and provisional open-question
defaults. Rescope Trust Service work to offline schemas/fold/fixtures, add
normative core extraction workplan, and split PRD roadmap Phase 4 into
foundation vs hosted service. Sync workplans with State Hub.
