tegwick
74ec1622bf
Introduces specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md: independent, locally-licensed Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use (License §3 violations) in their home jurisdiction for a Contingency Share of Recovery, so enforcement scales the way the framework's monetization already does - through aligned incentive rather than central litigation capacity. New terminology (Alleged Violation, Enforcement Action, Recovery, Contingency Share, Platform Share, Enforcement Registry, Enforcement Partner Agreement) plus a proposed enforcement-recovery Monetization Extension so Recovery flows into Development Credit through the existing accounting model rather than a parallel bucket. Flags the mechanism's central risk up front rather than assuming it away: lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere. Backed by workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md (10 tasks); four executed this session with live web research: - Germany/EU: RVG §4a permits contingency fees only in three narrow gates, none fitting this fact pattern well - single-role Enforcement Partner is very likely not viable; France permits a fixed-fee-plus-uncapped-result- fee structure instead; EU litigation-funding regulation is proposed (2022 EP resolution) but not yet adopted. - US: contingency fees broadly permitted; practical precondition is timely copyright registration of the Milestone Release to unlock statutory damages/fee-shifting; Copyright Claims Board flagged as a lower-cost venue. - UK: Damages-Based Agreements cap fees at 50% for this case category - the concept's originally-proposed 50% Contingency Share lands exactly on this real statutory ceiling, the first jurisdiction where the figure is precisely validated rather than arbitrary. - Mechanism design: synthesizes the above into a single Enforcement Partner Agreement template with jurisdiction-conditional role structure (single-role vs. Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split), with a payment- flow diagram showing the Development Credit allocation is unaffected by which structure applies. Six of ten WP-0005 tasks remain open (Argentina, India, China, Africa, Asia-Pacific, and the human-gated synthesis). Cross-referenced from README. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
8.8 KiB
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 (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
INTENT.md— durable purpose and design principlesSCOPE.md— what is in scope now vs later maturityspecs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md— normative concept draft (ultimate source; governs if it and the extracts below ever diverge)specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md— goals, FRs, roadmapspecs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md— schema field tables and boundariesspecs/OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md— provisional Stage 0 defaults
Exploration transcript (non-normative): history/260728-InitialExploration.md
Program assessment: 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 |
Seven core terms, target formula, five-verb lifecycle, nine core rules, foundational invariants |
specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md |
Phase Manifest field tiers and validation rules |
specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md |
Ledger entry types, hash chain, Outstanding Target fold |
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 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 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 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; four of ten research tasks are done (Germany/EU, US, UK, mechanism design — see history/260729-TREN-*.md), confirming the UK's 50% Damages-Based Agreement cap validates the originally-proposed Contingency Share exactly, while Germany likely requires the split-role structure.
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 | Prior-art research (T01–T05 done, archived to history/) → TRSL V1C1 license candidate (T06 ready for human review) |
| TREV-WP-0002 | Schemas, pure Outstanding Target fold, golden fixture — finished |
| TREV-WP-0003 | Extract stable normative core docs — T01–T05 done, T06 human review open |
| TREV-WP-0004 | Global jurisdictional research backing the License/CUA candidates (Germany/EU, US, UK, Argentina, India, China, Africa, Asia-Pacific, choice-of-law) — planned, not started |
| TREV-WP-0005 | Enforcement Network legal feasibility research (contingency-fee availability per jurisdiction) — 4 of 10 tasks done |
Hub index: WORK-RECORDS.md · brief: .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.
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,
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 and CONTRIBUTING.md.
License
Repository contents are under MIT No Attribution unless a file states otherwise. That is the license of this repository, not the Target Revenue Source License for third-party software.