{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T11:26:04Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 21.1, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a0955c-e2e0-73b1-b247-1bbade572a3c\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: multi-licensing\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 044: 1001", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 76.4, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a0955c-e2ec-7cf1-bb51-4383defe6156\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: multi-licensing\nRegistry id: vr.tr.multi-licensing\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:40:24+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners", "visual_identification" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T11:09:44+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "definition", "distinguishing_features", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "953cb586accaaca09cb6195dec8597a4b7dd090fe4e395abe60e7cebbb618ddc" } ], "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:28+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q1367082", "registryId": "vr.tr.multi-licensing", "name": "multi-licensing", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1367082/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.multi-licensing", "name": "multi-licensing", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise a multi-licensing arrangement, establish which licence routes cover a particular work and use, and identify the evidence needed before choosing or offering a route.", "definition": "Multi-licensing is the practice of offering the same work under two or more alternative licenses from which a recipient may choose, with permissions and obligations determined by the chosen licence route.", "scope_statement": "This model owns multi-licensing as the practice of making the same identifiable work available through multiple alternative licence routes that give the recipient a choice, including separately negotiated alternatives where that choice exists, while recording disputed terminology and excluding arrangements that only impose cumulative requirements.", "in_scope": [ "Definitions of multi-licensing and the evidence used to classify an arrangement", "The exact work, version and portions covered by each licence route", "Authority to offer multiple routes and treatment of third-party contributions", "Recipient choice, eligibility and conditions for accessing each route", "Route-specific obligations, downstream choices and changes over time" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The full interpretation of individual licences", "General copyright ownership and intellectual-property adjudication", "A complete dependency inventory for a software product", "Product pricing, sales operations and commercial strategy beyond licence-route differences", "Successive relicensing where no multiple-route arrangement exists" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify at least two licence routes covering the same work or an explicitly shared portion; different licences on unrelated components are insufficient.", "Establish that recipients may choose between alternative licence routes; cumulative requirements alone do not qualify, and a separately negotiated route qualifies only when it provides such a choice.", "Check the actual licensed content: differently licensed editions with no established shared coverage do not by themselves demonstrate multi-licensing.", "Distinguish an alternative licence grant from permission to combine works under compatible licences.", "Record whose terminology is being used, since the GNU licensing analysis at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html distinguishes disjunctive dual licensing from selling exceptions, which others call dual licensing." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Terminological interpretation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Recipient-choice licensing; public licence plus negotiated alternative; cumulative usage; disputed or unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a shared label from concealing different permission structures." }, { "name": "Licence-route count", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Integer count of distinct evidenced routes for a specified work, recipient class and date", "why_it_matters": "Separates genuine alternatives from duplicate notices or historical licences." }, { "name": "Coverage overlap", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Each route linked to covered works, versions, files or other portions", "why_it_matters": "Establishes whether the alternatives actually cover the material the agent intends to use." }, { "name": "Choice mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Recipient election; eligibility-dependent election; negotiated grant; cumulative terms; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether selecting a route is sufficient or another action is required." }, { "name": "Offering authority", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Evidenced for all covered material; evidenced for part; disputed; unverified", "why_it_matters": "An advertised alternative may lack demonstrated authority for some contributions." }, { "name": "Route availability", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Publicly offered; available on agreement; unavailable to this recipient; historical; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Separates an available permission route from a possibility or expired offer." }, { "name": "Selected route", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Recipient and intended action linked to a licence route and supporting evidence", "why_it_matters": "Makes subsequent compliance decisions traceable to the terms actually relied upon." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a purported multi-licensing arrangement from its grants, notices and coverage.", "Compare evidenced licence routes for a specified use and recipient.", "Identify missing contributor permissions or excluded material before offering an alternative.", "Record a route selection and the obligations requiring verification for the intended action.", "Determine which downstream licence options are evidenced for a particular distributed version.", "Reassess route availability when content, licence terms or recipient circumstances change." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Identify all licences a work is offered under and state which one a recipient has chosen.", "Explain in general terms how the obligations differ between the offered licences." ], "must_not": [ "Combine the terms of separate licences as if they applied together.", "Claim a work is available under a licence its rights holder has not offered.", "Remove licence notices or copyright statements when redistributing a multi-licensed work.", "Give definitive legal advice on licence compatibility for a specific product." ], "requires_human": [ "Choosing which licence to accept for a product that will be distributed.", "Relicensing contributions from other authors." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Licence choice decides who can use, change and profit from shared work.", "Contributors may not expect their work to be offered under commercial terms." ], "affected_parties": [ "Authors and contributors", "Users and redistributors", "Downstream projects" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "The rights holder who offers the licences.", "master_systems": [] }, "visual_identification": [ "Appears as a licence notice naming two or more licences, often with the words or, dual or choose.", "Licence files or package metadata may list several licence identifiers joined by OR." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Misreading a dual licence as a combined licence can breach obligations.", "Accepting contributions without clear rights can block a project from offering its licences." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Multi-licensing appears in software, documentation, datasets and other copyrighted works offered under alternative permission terms.", "Recipients use the available routes to select terms compatible with their intended use, while publishers use them to support different distribution or commercial arrangements.", "The applicable choices depend on the exact work, version, rights holders and accompanying licence notices." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, provides an international copyright framework underlying the rights licensed.", "ISO/IEC 5962:2021, issued by the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission, standardizes software package data exchange and supports licence expressions that distinguish alternative licences from cumulative obligations." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1367082: multi-licensing", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1367082", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Multi-licensing", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-instance-tests", "name": "Meaning and instance tests", "description": "Establish what multi-licensing means in the relevant setting and whether the arrangement meets that interpretation.", "rationale": "The same label can describe recipient choice, negotiated alternatives or merely multiple licence notices.", "layers": [ { "id": "definitions-and-disagreements", "name": "Definitions and disagreements", "description": "Record attributed definitions without treating industry terminology as uniform.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-meaning", "name": "Attributed meaning", "description": "Identify the interpretation used by the licensor, recipient and relevant reference sources.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does each relevant party mean by multi-licensing, and does that meaning include separately sold exceptions?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attributed-meaning-q01" }, { "text": "Which published statement or agreement supports each attributed interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-meaning-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "qualifying-arrangement", "name": "Qualifying arrangement", "description": "Test for multiple routes over shared material rather than inferring them from branding.", "findings": [ { "id": "shared-work-and-alternatives", "name": "Shared work and alternatives", "description": "Establish the shared licensed subject and distinguish alternatives from aggregation or sequential changes.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which identifiable material is covered by at least two evidenced licence routes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "shared-work-and-alternatives-q01" }, { "text": "What establishes that this is multiple-route licensing rather than separate component licences or a change between releases?", "kind": "definition", "id": "shared-work-and-alternatives-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "coverage-and-offer-evidence", "name": "Coverage and offer evidence", "description": "Bind every route to identifiable content and the instrument that offers it.", "rationale": "A project-level licensing claim cannot establish the available routes for every file, edition or release.", "layers": [ { "id": "licensed-subject", "name": "Licensed subject", "description": "Resolve shared coverage and exclusions at the granularity used by the grants.", "findings": [ { "id": "route-coverage-map", "name": "Route coverage map", "description": "Record the content covered by each alternative and any portions governed separately.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which versions, files, assets or other portions does each licence route cover?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "route-coverage-map-q01" }, { "text": "Which third-party portions or edition-specific additions fall outside the shared coverage?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "route-coverage-map-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "grant-identification", "name": "Grant identification", "description": "Identify exact licence texts and evidence that they apply to the covered material.", "findings": [ { "id": "operative-offer", "name": "Operative offer", "description": "Capture licence versions, exceptions and applicable notices or agreements without substituting a marketing summary.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which exact licence texts, versions, exceptions and agreements define each route?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "operative-offer-q01" }, { "text": "Which dated notice or executed agreement connects each route to this particular material?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "operative-offer-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence resolves conflicts between file headers, repository notices and commercial terms?", "kind": "action", "id": "operative-offer-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "authority-and-contribution-coverage", "name": "Authority and contribution coverage", "description": "Establish the basis on which the offering party can make each route available.", "rationale": "Rights to distribute under one licence do not alone establish authority to offer every alternative.", "layers": [ { "id": "granting-authority", "name": "Granting authority", "description": "Trace the evidence supporting the offered grants.", "findings": [ { "id": "authority-for-each-route", "name": "Authority for each route", "description": "Identify ownership, permissions or other asserted grounds for each alternative and mark gaps.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who offers each route, and what evidence supports their authority over its covered material?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "authority-for-each-route-q01" }, { "text": "Which permissions are established, disputed or still unverified for the proposed alternative?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "authority-for-each-route-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "incoming-contributions", "name": "Incoming contributions", "description": "Assess how contributions and incorporated material affect the continued availability of multiple routes.", "findings": [ { "id": "contributor-permission-fit", "name": "Contributor permission fit", "description": "Determine whether incoming rights support the outgoing alternatives for the relevant release.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which contributor agreements or inbound licence grants support inclusion under each outgoing route?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contributor-permission-fit-q01" }, { "text": "Which contributions require additional permission, exclusion or a narrower route description?", "kind": "action", "id": "contributor-permission-fit-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "route-choice-and-obligations", "name": "Route choice and obligations", "description": "Connect a recipient's intended action to available alternatives and the terms requiring assessment.", "rationale": "Multiple licences are useful to an agent only when it can distinguish accessible options and evaluate a concrete use.", "layers": [ { "id": "choice-and-eligibility", "name": "Choice and eligibility", "description": "Establish how a recipient obtains or elects a route.", "findings": [ { "id": "route-access-conditions", "name": "Route access conditions", "description": "Separate publicly available alternatives from routes requiring eligibility, payment or agreement.", "questions": [ { "text": "May this recipient choose freely among the routes, or what eligibility and agreement conditions apply?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "route-access-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "What action and evidence, if any, establish that the recipient has obtained or selected a route?", "kind": "action", "id": "route-access-conditions-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "use-specific-comparison", "name": "Use-specific comparison", "description": "Compare route conditions against a defined action rather than ranking licences in the abstract.", "findings": [ { "id": "permission-and-obligation-fit", "name": "Permission and obligation fit", "description": "Record the differences relevant to the proposed use and the unresolved interpretations that prevent a supported decision.", "questions": [ { "text": "For the intended copying, modification, distribution or service operation, which permissions and conditions require checking under each route?", "kind": "action", "id": "permission-and-obligation-fit-q01" }, { "text": "Which differences in disclosure, notices, patent permissions, fees or contractual commitments affect route suitability?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "permission-and-obligation-fit-q02" }, { "text": "Which route is supported by the evidence for this action, and what unresolved issue prevents selection if none is established?", "kind": "action", "id": "permission-and-obligation-fit-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "downstream-options-and-change", "name": "Downstream options and change", "description": "Track what happens to licence alternatives when material is modified, redistributed or offered under changed terms.", "rationale": "An upstream menu of licences does not by itself establish the options attached to every downstream copy or later release.", "layers": [ { "id": "redistribution-and-modification", "name": "Redistribution and modification", "description": "Determine the evidenced routes for recipients of a particular redistributed or modified version.", "findings": [ { "id": "downstream-route-preservation", "name": "Downstream route preservation", "description": "Trace original material, modifications and required notices to determine which alternatives are actually conveyed.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which licence routes may the distributor offer for the original material and for its modifications?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "downstream-route-preservation-q01" }, { "text": "What notices, permissions and distribution choices establish which alternatives downstream recipients receive?", "kind": "action", "id": "downstream-route-preservation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "offer-and-grant-history", "name": "Offer and grant history", "description": "Separate changes to future offers from the status of previously obtained grants.", "findings": [ { "id": "time-specific-route-status", "name": "Time-specific route status", "description": "Record route changes by release, recipient and date, leaving legal effects unresolved where evidence is insufficient.", "questions": [ { "text": "When and for which releases or recipient classes was each route introduced, changed or withdrawn from new availability?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "time-specific-route-status-q01" }, { "text": "What do the applicable terms establish about previously obtained permissions after an offer changes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "time-specific-route-status-q02" }, { "text": "Which changes require reassessing an existing route selection before the next planned action?", "kind": "action", "id": "time-specific-route-status-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "No sense was supplied; this description assumes intellectual-property licensing, particularly software licensing.", "Terminology varies: some uses include cumulative licensing, so a specific arrangement must state whether licenses are alternatives or simultaneous requirements.", "This is recall-based context; no sources or particular licensing arrangements were checked." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Dual licensing under two alternative licenses", "Multiple alternative open-source licenses", "Copyleft and proprietary licensing alternatives" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "SPDX license expressions", "value_or_pattern": "LicenseRef-A OR LicenseRef-B", "note": "OR expresses a choice of licenses; AND expresses cumulative requirements. SPDX-listed license identifiers can replace custom LicenseRef identifiers." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "SPDX specification, maintained by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project, provides license identifiers and expressions for recording alternative and cumulative licensing.", "Open Source Definition, maintained by the Open Source Initiative, supplies criteria for evaluating whether a license is open source." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Offering software under a copyleft license alongside a paid proprietary license.", "Allowing recipients to choose an open-source license compatible with their intended redistribution.", "Offering documentation or other creative works under alternative licenses.", "Recording license choices in package metadata and software bills of materials." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Confusing alternative licenses with licenses whose requirements apply cumulatively.", "Assuming an offered license covers dependencies, bundled assets, or third-party contributions that have separate terms.", "Offering licenses without sufficient rights or authorization from relevant contributors.", "Failing to identify which releases, files, or components a license choice covers.", "Assuming payment for a proprietary license transfers copyright ownership." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Copyright rules and the interpretation and enforceability of license terms vary by jurisdiction." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "name": "Dual licensing", "difference": "Dual licensing is the two-license case of multi-licensing." }, { "name": "Mixed-license distribution", "difference": "Different components carry different licenses, rather than the same work being offered under alternative licenses." }, { "name": "Relicensing", "difference": "Relicensing changes or adds licensing terms for a work; multi-licensing describes the availability of multiple licenses." }, { "name": "Sublicensing", "difference": "Sublicensing involves a licensee granting rights onward under authorization from an upstream licensor; multiple license options need not be involved." }, { "name": "Open-core business model", "difference": "Open core separates an open-source core from proprietary functionality; multi-licensing can offer the same functionality under different licenses." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of multi-licensing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend multi-licensing specifically in software copyright practice, or also for other works and classes of rights?", "Should cumulative licensing count as an instance under this registry entry, or remain a contrasting use of the term?", "Which attributed definitions best explain the boundary between alternative licensing and selling exceptions?", "What minimum evidence should establish shared coverage when public and negotiated licences apply to differently packaged editions?", "How should jurisdiction-dependent uncertainty about route switching and previously granted permissions be represented without asserting a universal rule?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 31 } }