target-revenue/workplans/TREV-WP-0001-license-prior-art-research.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	created	updated	state_hub_workstream_id
TREV-WP-0001	workplan	TargetRevenueSourceLicense prior-art and adjacent-concept research	infotech	target-revenue	finished	claude	infotech	2026-07-28	2026-07-29	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

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

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)

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

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

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

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.