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	active	claude	infotech	2026-07-28	2026-07-28	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 spec/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).

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

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

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 spec/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md §7, §10, §18.

Survey OSI Open Source Definition and Fair Source boundary framing

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

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.

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

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

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 / spec/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.

Survey contributor-rights instruments for dual-future licensing

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

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 spec/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md §21.4).

Survey jurisdiction-specific standard-terms constraints

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

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.

Synthesize findings into an initial TRSL draft skeleton

id: TREV-WP-0001-T06
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "9e29b76f-37c0-4204-8cdc-e8d75e8412b4"

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 spec/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 spec/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md §21.5.