target-revenue/workplans/TREV-WP-0001-license-prior-art-research.md

---
id: TREV-WP-0001
type: workplan
title: "TargetRevenueSourceLicense prior-art and adjacent-concept research"
domain: infotech
repo: target-revenue
status: active
owner: claude
topic_slug: infotech
created: "2026-07-28"
updated: "2026-07-28"
---

# 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

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T01
status: todo
priority: high
```

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

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```

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)

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
```

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

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
```

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

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
```

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

```task
id: TREV-WP-0001-T06
status: todo
priority: high
```

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.