coulomb/target-revenue
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
target-revenue/README.md
tegwick 11f2dc3a6d Complete WP-0004 and WP-0005 jurisdiction research (8 of 8 each) 
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>
2026-07-29 17:07:42 +02:00

110 lines
9 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

# target-revenue
**Status:** Concept and specification only (Stage 0). Not production legal text. Do not attach TRSL to production software yet.
The **Target Revenue Framework (TRF)** is a phased software monetization system: a defined development **Phase** accumulates **Development Credit** and **Remission Credit** against an immutable **Initial Target** until the **Milestone Release** automatically converts to a permissive **Future License** (MIT or Apache-2.0). A **Trust Service** publishes manifests, ledgers, extensions, and attestations as factual evidence — it does not decide conversion.
> Commercial beneficiaries fund the creation and early availability of a software improvement; once the declared target is satisfied, the governed release becomes permissively open source.
## Terminology guardrail
Before conversion, software under TRSL is **source-available** with commercial-use restrictions. It is **not** Open Source under the [OSI Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd) (field-of-endeavour non-discrimination). After the Conversion Event, the Milestone Release is available under the declared OSI-style Future License.
| State | Accurate label |
| --- | --- |
| Pre-conversion, noncommercial | Source-available (permitted uses) |
| Pre-conversion, commercial | Commercially licensed / entitlement required |
| Post-conversion | Open source under Future License |
## Reading order
1. [`INTENT.md`](INTENT.md) — durable purpose and design principles
2. [`SCOPE.md`](SCOPE.md) — what is in scope *now* vs later maturity
3. [`specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md`](specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md) — normative concept draft (ultimate source; governs if it and the extracts below ever diverge)
4. [`specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md`](specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md) — goals, FRs, roadmap
5. [`specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md`](specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md) — schema field tables and boundaries
6. [`specs/OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md`](specs/OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md) — provisional Stage 0 defaults
Exploration transcript (non-normative): [`history/260728-InitialExploration.md`](history/260728-InitialExploration.md)
Program assessment: [`history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md`](history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md)
## Normative documents (day-to-day reference)
Extracted and stabilized from the concept draft under `workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md` (T01–T05 done; T06 human review still open — see that workplan). Use these for terminology, not the concept draft's prose, in ordinary implementation work:
| Document | Covers |
| --- | --- |
| [`specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md`](specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md) | Seven core terms, target formula, five-verb lifecycle, nine core rules, foundational invariants |
| [`specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md`](specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md) | Phase Manifest field tiers and validation rules |
| [`specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md`](specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md) | Ledger entry types, hash chain, Outstanding Target fold |
| [`specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md`](specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md) | Six-field extension contract, registered vs. canonical |
**Forbidden synonyms:** do not treat undifferentiated "revenue captured" as equivalent to Development Credit (see `CONTRIBUTING.md` § Terminology); do not call pre-conversion software "Open Source" (see the guardrail table above).
## TRSL license candidate
[`specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md`](specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md) is the first candidate written as actual operative license text (Version 1, Candidate 1) rather than a bracket-annotated skeleton — **preliminary, not final, not for production use** (see the notice at the top of that file). It is grounded in the prior-art and jurisdiction research archived under `history/260729-TRSL-*.md`, and supersedes the earlier skeleton now archived at `history/260729-TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md`.
[`specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md`](specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md) is the companion Commercial Use Agreement template the License refers to but does not itself set terms for — same preliminary-candidate status, but **less** mature than the License: it had no dedicated prior-art research pass, and its Section 13 (Indemnification) is deliberately left unwritten rather than guessed.
## Enforcement Network concept
[`specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md`](specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md) is a new, separate concept (2026-07-29): independent, locally-licensed Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use in their home jurisdiction for a share of Recovery, so License §3 enforcement scales without the Licensor litigating everywhere directly. **The central open risk is that lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere** — Germany notably restricts them — so the concept requires a jurisdiction-conditional Litigation Funder/Local Counsel structure, not a single global fee mechanism. Backed by `workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md`; 9 of 10 tasks are done (all 8 jurisdictions plus mechanism design — see `history/260729-TREN-*.md`), only the human-gated synthesis remains. Findings: 50% is only exactly valid in the UK; most jurisdictions cap lower (18–35%) or ban direct lawyer contingency outright (Germany, India); India cleanly confirms the split-role model is both necessary and legal there; Japan's fee-splitting rule means even the split-role fallback needs jurisdiction-specific structuring, not just an availability check.
## Repository layout
| Path | Role |
| --- | --- |
| `INTENT.md` | Stable purpose (change rarely) |
| `SCOPE.md` | Living Stage 0 scope |
| `specs/` | Concept source, product/tech specs, working defaults, and normative extracts |
| `workplans/` | Active delivery plans |
| `history/` | Dated non-normative exploration and assessments |
| `examples/` | Golden Phase packages (`phase-001`, from WP-0002) |
| `schemas/` | Machine-readable JSON Schemas (WP-0002) |
| `src/target_revenue/` | Pure Python validators, hash chain, Outstanding Target fold, conversion detection (WP-0002) |
| `docs/adr/` | Architecture decisions; ADR-0001 (Stage 0 library stack) **accepted** 2026-07-29 |
**`spec/` vs `specs/` (resolved 2026-07-29):** the concept document originally lived under a separate singular `spec/` directory, which `history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md` flagged as a "perpetual footgun." It has been merged into `specs/` alongside the product/tech specs and normative extracts — there is now one specs directory for the whole repository. The historical split, and the decision to merge it, remain visible in `history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md` (unedited, as a dated record) rather than rewritten here.
## Active work
| Workplan | Focus |
| --- | --- |
| [TREV-WP-0001](workplans/TREV-WP-0001-license-prior-art-research.md) | Prior-art research (T01–T05 done, archived to `history/`) → TRSL V1C1 license candidate (T06 ready for human review) |
| [TREV-WP-0002](workplans/TREV-WP-0002-trust-service-foundation.md) | Schemas, pure Outstanding Target fold, golden fixture — **finished** |
| [TREV-WP-0003](workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md) | Extract stable normative core docs — T01–T05 done, T06 human review open |
| [TREV-WP-0004](workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md) | Global jurisdictional research backing the License/CUA candidates — 8 of 10 tasks done (all jurisdictions; T09 choice-of-law strategy and T10 synthesis remain) |
| [TREV-WP-0005](workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md) | Enforcement Network legal feasibility research — 9 of 10 tasks done (all jurisdictions and mechanism design; T10 synthesis remains, human-gated) |
Hub index: [`WORK-RECORDS.md`](WORK-RECORDS.md) · brief: [`.custodian-brief.md`](.custodian-brief.md)
## Stage 0 library (schemas, pure fold, validators)
WP-0002 delivers an **offline, dependency-light library** — not a hosted
Trust Service (`SCOPE.md` §3). It validates the schemas in `schemas/`,
computes the pure Outstanding Target fold, verifies the SHA-256 hash chain,
and checks Monetization Extension conformance.
```bash
pip install -e ".[dev]"
python3 -m pytest tests/ # 32 tests, no network required
python3 scripts/generate_golden_phase.py # regenerate examples/phase-001/ledger.json
```
The implementation stack (Python, `jsonschema`, `pytest`, `hatchling`) is
recorded in [`docs/adr/ADR-0001-stage0-library-stack.md`](docs/adr/ADR-0001-stage0-library-stack.md),
**accepted 2026-07-29**.
## What this repo does not claim yet
- Final legal license text or enforceable TRSL
- A running production Trust Service
- A finalized degeneration formula (research + working defaults only)
- That any real product Phase is governed by TRF today
See [`SCOPE.md`](SCOPE.md) and [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md).
## License
Repository contents are under [MIT No Attribution](LICENSE) unless a file states otherwise. That is the license of *this repository*, not the Target Revenue Source License for third-party software.
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink