coulomb/target-revenue
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
target-revenue/README.md
tegwick 74ec1622bf New concept: Enforcement Network (contingency-incentivized violation enforcement) 
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>
2026-07-29 15:21:19 +02:00

110 lines
8.8 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`; 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](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 (Germany/EU, US, UK, Argentina, India, China, Africa, Asia-Pacific, choice-of-law) — planned, not started |
| [TREV-WP-0005](workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md) | Enforcement Network legal feasibility research (contingency-fee availability per jurisdiction) — 4 of 10 tasks done |
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