---
id: TREV-WP-0001
type: workplan
title: "TargetRevenueSourceLicense prior-art and adjacent-concept research"
domain: infotech
repo: target-revenue
status: finished
owner: claude
topic_slug: infotech
created: "2026-07-28"
updated: "2026-07-29"
state_hub_workstream_id: "6f91cef8-c75c-4955-aaba-0b240390fbe9"
---

# TargetRevenueSourceLicense prior-art and adjacent-concept research

Research prior art and adjacent licensing/monetization concepts to ground an
initial draft of the Target Revenue Source License (TRSL). The concept is
already established in `specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` and
`specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md`; `history/260728-InitialExploration.md`
already surfaces several reference points (Fair Source, PolyForm
NonCommercial, Business Source License 1.1, FSL, OSI Open Source Definition,
SPDX `LicenseRef-` conventions, German §31/§307/§32 considerations). This
workplan deepens and formalizes that groundwork into a research artifact
sufficient to brief specialist legal drafting (PRD Roadmap Phase 2, MVP
deliverable `TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md`).

This workplan does **not** produce final legal text. It produces the research
basis and an initial non-binding draft skeleton for specialist review, per
`specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md` §8 (out-of-scope reinforcement).

**Sequencing:** Runs in parallel with WP-0003 (normative core extract) and
WP-0002 (schemas / pure fold). Does not depend on a hosted Trust Service.
Stage 0 terminology and Future License enum defaults are in
`specs/OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md` (Q1–Q3, Q15); refine or challenge
them with research evidence rather than silently inventing alternatives.

**Human gate:** Task T06 (TRSL draft skeleton) MUST NOT be marked `done`
without explicit human accept (SCOPE §4, CONTRIBUTING.md). Agents may
prepare the draft and leave status `todo` or note “ready for human accept.”

## Survey delayed-open-source and source-available license models

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "d2953e5a-7831-4593-93fd-3bd8faaec48d"
```

Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md` produced,
grounded in primary-source license text fetched live (BSL 1.1, FSL,
PolyForm Noncommercial, Fair Source, Elastic License 2.0, OSI OSD). Key
finding: FSL's fixed two-license, single-trigger design was created
specifically to fix BSL's "Additional Use Grant" variability problem —
confirms TRSL's closed `{MIT, Apache-2.0}` enum and no per-Phase custom
license text is the right call, not just an internal preference.

Survey and compare structurally similar models: Business Source License 1.1
(MariaDB), Functional Source License (FSL), PolyForm Noncommercial /
PolyForm Shield, Fair Source (fair.io), Elastic License 2.0, Sentry's SSPL-
adjacent choices, and any other revenue- or time-triggered conversion
licenses. For each, capture: the trigger mechanism (fixed date vs. revenue vs.
hybrid), the pre-conversion restriction scope, the automatic-conversion legal
wording, and known criticisms or disputes. Record findings so they can be
diffed directly against TRSL's Phase/Target/Conversion model in
`specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §7, §10, §18.

**Deliverable path:** `history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md` (research artifacts are archived to `history/` with a date prefix once produced, per 2026-07-29 maintainer instruction).

## Survey OSI Open Source Definition and Fair Source boundary framing

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "3f6166cd-d8a3-4f2e-a52e-28ecd08a8cf1"
```

Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Terminology-Guardrails.md` produced.
Confirmed via primary OSD text (Clause 6, field-of-endeavor
non-discrimination) that pre-conversion TRSL cannot be Open Source, no
ambiguity. Confirmed Fair Source's three-part DOSP definition applies
cleanly to TRSL's structure. No change recommended to README's existing
guardrail table or to working defaults Q1/Q2 — this research confirms the
category framing rather than changing it.

Confirm and document precisely why TRSL's pre-conversion state cannot be
described as "Open Source" under the OSI Open Source Definition
(field-of-endeavour non-discrimination), and how Fair Source's "source
available with limited business-protection restriction, later converts to
OSI-approved license" framing applies or should be adapted. Produce
recommended terminology guardrails (source-available vs. open source vs.
commercially licensed) for use consistently across all TRF documents.

Align with README terminology guardrail and
`specs/OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md` Q1–Q2; update those if research
improves the wording (human accept if changing published working defaults).

## Survey patent-grant and Future License precedent (MIT vs Apache-2.0)

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T03
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "0df9125d-0bbb-4e21-8b04-8a5dda02d140"
```

Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md`
produced. Confirmed via primary text: MIT has zero patent language (implied
grant legally unsettled); Apache-2.0 has an explicit, contribution-scoped
patent grant plus litigation-termination clause. No change to working
default Q3 (both remain canonical options); added Phase-author guidance
(Apache-2.0 default where patentable technique is plausible). Recommends
TRSL's pre-conversion Phase also carry a minimal express patent license
(Apache-2.0-shaped) — new item, marked `[LEGAL]` in the T06 draft.

Research the practical and legal tradeoffs between MIT and Apache-2.0 as
canonical Future Licenses, focusing on: the extent and legal certainty of any
implied patent grant under MIT, Apache-2.0's explicit patent grant and
patent-litigation termination clause, and precedent for offering both as
parallel canonical options (per PRD open question 3 /
`specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §24.3). Produce a recommendation on
whether the TRSL pre-conversion phase itself needs an express patent license
independent of the eventual Future License choice.

Working default already allows both Future Licenses in schemas
(`OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md` Q3); this task confirms or revises that.

## Survey contributor-rights instruments for dual-future licensing

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T04
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "25fbf15c-60c4-4284-af84-49d109b74cf8"
```

Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md`
produced. Confirmed via primary DCO 1.1 text that its certification is
scoped to "the open source license indicated in the file" at time of
contribution — it does not extend to a future, different Future License,
so a DCO alone is insufficient (concept §21.4's instinct confirmed with a
specific textual reason). Recommends a CLA (not copyright assignment,
to preserve contribution volume), scoped narrowly to the current Phase's
TRSL terms plus the Phase's already-declared Future License. `CONTRIBUTING.md`
interim policy (external contributions blocked pending an instrument)
left unchanged — this research specifies the eventual instrument's shape
but does not itself create it; recommends a future dedicated
`TRSL-ContributorLicenseAgreement-Draft.md` deliverable when needed.

Research contributor license agreement (CLA) and copyright assignment
patterns used by projects that must promise two future states (a restricted
phase license plus an eventual permissive license) — e.g. how BSL/FSL-based
projects and other dual/relicensing projects handle contributor rights.
Compare against the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO), and determine
whether a DCO alone is sufficient or whether TRSL requires a broader inbound
grant (per `history/260728-InitialExploration.md` §8 and
`specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §21.4).

Update `CONTRIBUTING.md` if the recommendation changes interim policy
(external contributions still blocked for governed Milestone Releases until
instrument exists).

## Survey jurisdiction-specific standard-terms constraints

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T05
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "1fe4b444-90b0-49d0-8d2a-9e3a99d2822a"
```

Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md`
produced. Confirmed §31/§32 UrhG text via primary source; §307 BGB
Transparenzgebot confirmed via secondary legal sources (not primary-text-
verified this session — flagged for counsel verification). Important
scoping correction surfaced: German AGB law applies to B2B contracts too
(not just consumer), while the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC
is consumer-only — a real asymmetry not previously distinguished. Ranked
five terms most needing objective definitions (settled payment first;
commercial use second). No change to working default Q2's "blocked on
legal" status; recommends a dedicated Definitions section in the eventual
license text.

Deepen the German-law groundwork already sketched in
`history/260728-InitialExploration.md` §10 (§31 UrhG scoped rights of use,
§307 BGB standard-terms clarity requirement, §32 UrhG author remuneration)
and identify whether comparable standard-terms / consumer-protection
constraints in other jurisdictions relevant to likely early commercial users
(e.g. US, EU generally) impose similar clarity requirements on terms such as
"commercial use," "captured," "Development Credit," and "Conversion Event."
Flag terms that most urgently need objective, litigation-safe definitions.

Feed clarity-critical terms into T06 skeleton as `[LEGAL]` markers and into
working defaults Q2 if definitions improve.

## Synthesize findings into an initial TRSL draft skeleton

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T06
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "9e29b76f-37c0-4204-8cdc-e8d75e8412b4"
human_accept_required: true
human_accepted_by: Bernd
human_accepted_at: "2026-07-29"
```

Using T01–T05, produce `specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md`: a
non-binding initial drafting basis (not final legal text) structuring the
license around the components already identified in
`specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §21 (permitted noncommercial use,
commercial-use restriction, automatic Future License conversion, patent
treatment, termination and cure, warranty/liability exclusions). Explicitly
mark every clause requiring specialist legal review before use, per
`specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §21.5.

**Human accept gate:** Do not set this task to `done` until a human maintainer
explicitly accepts the skeleton as adequate briefing material for counsel.
Agent completion of the file is “ready for review,” not done.

Result 2026-07-29: `specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md` produced,
synthesizing T01–T05. Every clause tagged `[CONFIRMED BY RESEARCH]`,
`[LEGAL]`, `[WORKING DEFAULT]`, or `[OPEN]` per §0's reading key.

Result 2026-07-29 (same day, maintainer instruction): the draft skeleton
was archived to `history/260729-TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md`
(dated research artifact) and superseded by
`specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md` — Version 1, Candidate 1,
written as actual operative license text rather than a bracket-annotated
skeleton, per maintainer request. V1C1 carries its own preliminary-status
notice near the top and a non-normative "Candidate Notes" appendix mapping
back to this task's `[LEGAL]`/`[OPEN]` items. **Status remains `todo` —
ready for human review, not accepted.** Task should be marked `done` only
after a maintainer confirms V1C1 is adequate briefing material for counsel
(the deliverable this task now points to; the archived skeleton is
superseded, not the current target of the human-accept gate).

Result 2026-07-29 (maintainer review): maintainer reviewed V1C1 ("quite
strong") and requested one addition to §7 — public Trust Service
publication of breach notices, cure status, and termination
determinations, for ecosystem-signal/conformity-pressure purposes. Added as
new §7.4, with a naming-by-default mechanism (identifies the affected
party unless confidentiality/legal constraints require otherwise) flagged
as the single most legally sensitive open item in the candidate (Appendix
A item 10; `OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md` Q12 item 5). Propagated to
`specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md` §4.1 (new Breach/Compliance
Record Trust Service component) and `specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md`
FR-10. Still `todo` — ready for continued human review.

Result 2026-07-29 (maintainer revision): maintainer requested naming-policy
specifics be routed through the Commercial Use Agreement rather than set
as a License-wide default. Revised §7.4: the License now only guarantees
an anonymized Phase-and-category fallback record; whether a Commercial
Entitlement holder is named is governed exclusively by the applicable
Commercial Use Agreement (bilaterally negotiated, informed-consent basis)
or, absent one (e.g. a noncommercial §2(c) breach), stays anonymized by
default. This meaningfully reduces the License text's own legal exposure —
the open item shifts from "should the License name parties by default"
to "the Commercial Use Agreement template needs its own naming/consent/
data-protection clause," recommended as a future
`TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md` deliverable analogous to the CLA
recommendation in `history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md` §6.
Propagated to `OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md` Q12 item 5,
`specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md` FR-10, and
`specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md` §4.1. Still `todo` — ready for
continued human review.

Result 2026-07-29 (maintainer request): drafted
`specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md` — the companion
Commercial Use Agreement template the License repeatedly refers to but
does not itself set terms for. Written at the same operative-text quality
bar as the License (19 numbered sections + 3 Exhibits), including a real
§9 "Public Conformity Record; Breach Disclosure Election" clause
implementing the informed-consent naming mechanism this session's §7.4
revision deferred to this Agreement: an explicit opt-in election
(anonymized default vs. named), a 10-business-day pre-publication notice
with a dispute window for named disclosure, 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), so its preliminary notice
explicitly says every substantive clause is more provisional than the
License's, and Appendix A leaves Section 13 (Indemnification) entirely
unwritten rather than guess at a default with real financial exposure.
Cross-referenced from the License's own Appendix A item 10 (filename
corrected from the earlier "-Draft.md" placeholder name to match this
actual deliverable). Still `todo` — ready for human review alongside the
License.

Result 2026-07-29 (maintainer acceptance): Bernd reviewed V1C1 and
accepted it ("the Candidate is to be considered accepted"), conditioned on
one refinement to §1's "Commercial Use" definition. Applied: replaced the
prior circular definition ("use other than Noncommercial Use") with an
objective, billing-based trigger — Commercial Use occurs by billing a
customer for pre-conversion Software use, 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. Appendix A item 1
marked resolved for the core definition, with a narrower residual item
(consumer-protection-law override for individual/sole-proprietor
customers) left open. Updated the document's top 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.
**Task marked `done`** per the human-accept gate.