tegwick
8f316a466f
Per maintainer request, replaces the flat "working default 50%" Contingency
Share with a systematic per-jurisdiction rule, directly responding to
WP-0005's finding that 50% is unsafe almost everywhere except the UK:
1. 50% applies if lawful in the jurisdiction.
2. Otherwise, the higher of:
(A) the Jurisdiction Percentage Cap - the actual local statutory
maximum, published by the Enforcement Registry as background
information for prospective Enforcement Partners; or
(B) a Standard Bounty Amount - a fixed sum (not a percentage),
defaulting to $1,000 local-currency-equivalent, recalculated
annually to 50% of the trailing-18-month average unpaid-fees
amount where more than 10 settled cases exist (a sample-size floor
to avoid thin-sample noise), announced by 31 July, effective the
following 1 January, always capped at the specific case's own
unpaid fees.
Flags, as the highest-priority open question this rule itself introduces:
whether a fixed, non-percentage bounty actually escapes contingency-fee
prohibitions worded around outcome-contingency generally (India's Rule 20:
"contingent on the results of litigation") rather than percentage-
proportionality specifically (Germany's quota-litis-style rules) - the
Standard Bounty Amount may not solve what it was designed to solve in
exactly the jurisdictions that motivated it, and this is not yet verified.
Added as new specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §13 (Concise Definition
renumbered §14; no other section numbers changed, so existing cross-
references to §5.5/§6/§8/§9/§11 from workplans and history/ artifacts
remain valid). Updated §5.5, §5.7, and §8's key findings to point to the
new rule. Folded the rule's population and open questions into
WP-0005-T10's synthesis scope.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
112 lines
9.7 KiB
Markdown
112 lines
9.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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`; 9 of 10 tasks are done (all 8 jurisdictions plus mechanism design — see `history/260729-TREN-*.md`), only the human-gated synthesis remains. Findings: 50% is only exactly valid in the UK; most jurisdictions cap lower (18–35%) or ban direct lawyer contingency outright (Germany, India); India cleanly confirms the split-role model is both necessary and legal there; Japan's fee-splitting rule means even the split-role fallback needs jurisdiction-specific structuring, not just an availability check.
|
||
|
||
The concept's §13 now defines a **Global Contingency Share Determination Rule**: 50% where lawful, otherwise the higher of the local percentage cap or a published Standard Bounty Amount (a fixed sum, not a percentage — defaulting to $1,000 local-currency-equivalent, recalculated annually from case data, announced by 31 July for the following 1 January). This is a deliberate design response to the finding above, but it introduces its own open question flagged prominently in §13.4: whether a *fixed* bounty actually escapes contingency-fee prohibitions worded around outcome-contingency generally (e.g., India's Rule 20) rather than percentage-proportionality specifically — not yet confirmed.
|
||
|
||
## 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 — 8 of 10 tasks done (all jurisdictions; T09 choice-of-law strategy and T10 synthesis remain) |
|
||
| [TREV-WP-0005](workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md) | Enforcement Network legal feasibility research — 9 of 10 tasks done (all jurisdictions and mechanism design; T10 synthesis remains, human-gated) |
|
||
|
||
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.
|