tegwick
5de52c87d0
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>
307 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
307 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
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.
|