docs: add copyleft enforcement research corpus

paralegal-research/AGENTS.md

@@ -3,6 +3,10 @@
 These instructions apply throughout `paralegal-research/`. Read them before
 doing legal research for this repository.
 
+Read `TAXONOMY.md` before assigning metadata or describing the weight of an
+authority. For systematic research, use `templates/SEARCH-LOG.md` and preserve
+negative searches and unresolved leads.
+
 ## 1. Route the question before researching
 
 Normalize the request into five fields:
@@ -16,7 +20,9 @@ Normalize the request into five fields:
   specific performance, evidence, or procedure;
 - **time/version** — relevant license version, product release, and date.
 
-Then read `INDEX.md` and search before creating anything. Start with:
+Then read `ANSWERING-GUIDE.md`, route through `PROPOSITION-MAP.md`, and
+check `INDEX.md` plus `authorities/INDEX.md` before creating anything. Read
+`COVERAGE.md` when the question touches a known gap. Start with:
 
 ```console
 rg -n -i "<key phrase>|<synonym>|<case>|<statute>" paralegal-research LICENSE LEGAL-REVIEW.md README.md
@@ -102,14 +108,20 @@ Every completed research pass must:
 
 1. update the canonical matter rather than only a chat or issue;
 2. add or update authority cards where warranted;
-3. update `INDEX.md` in the same change;
+3. update `INDEX.md` for matters and `authorities/INDEX.md` for reusable
+   authorities in the same change;
 4. link related and superseded matters in both directions;
 5. state facts, assumptions, contrary authority, uncertainty, and open
    questions;
 6. use absolute dates and set `last_verified` to the actual verification date;
 7. distinguish a descriptive conclusion from a recommendation;
 8. leave the license text unchanged unless drafting was expressly requested.
 
+For a concurrent research swarm, the coordinator may reserve non-overlapping
+ID ranges. Each research agent writes only its assigned matter drafts and
+authority cards. The coordinator alone updates shared indexes, deduplicates
+authorities, and performs the final cross-link pass.
+
 ## 5. GitHub and external actions
 
 Repository memos are canonical. If the user asks for an issue, create one with
@@ -127,6 +139,8 @@ Before declaring a matter answered, verify:
 - requested relief is not described as awarded relief;
 - current cases and statutes were checked recently;
 - holdings are separated from settlements and commentary;
+- every new `PR-####` and `AUTH-####` identifier appears in its canonical
+  index and is not duplicated;
 - the memo explains what would change the answer;
 - local links resolve and `git diff --check` passes;
 - legal review is not implied unless `legal_review: approved` is supported by

paralegal-research/ANSWERING-GUIDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+# Paralegal AI answering guide
+
+This is the retrieval and answer contract for an agent using this research
+library. It does not authorize legal advice, external communications,
+enforcement, or license drafting.
+
+## Load the smallest sufficient context
+
+1. Normalize the question using `AGENTS.md` and `TAXONOMY.md`.
+2. Read `INDEX.md` and the proposition map referenced there.
+3. Read the most specific matter memo before individual authorities.
+4. Open only the authority cards needed to verify the answer and its limits.
+5. Recheck pending cases, current statutes, official license status, and stale
+   verification dates before relying on them.
+
+Do not load the entire corpus by default. Broad context can hide a controlling
+jurisdiction or procedural-posture difference.
+
+## Separate the layers of an answer
+
+Every substantive answer should distinguish:
+
+1. **Question and assumed facts** — actor, conduct, jurisdiction, exact license
+   and version, relevant dates, and requested remedy.
+2. **License text** — what the instrument says, without calling it enforceable
+   merely because it is written.
+3. **General legal rule** — statute or binding authority in the relevant forum.
+4. **Analogous authority** — persuasive decisions involving another license,
+   jurisdiction, or procedural posture.
+5. **Application** — a conditional analysis of the supplied facts.
+6. **Uncertainty** — missing facts, splits, negative searches, pending cases,
+   translations, and issues requiring counsel.
+7. **Status** — research status and legal-review status are separate.
+
+Use “holding,” “requested relief,” “awarded relief,” “settlement term,” and
+“inference” precisely as defined in `TAXONOMY.md`.
+
+## High-risk answer patterns
+
+### “Can a judge make them release the source?”
+
+Separate:
+
+- an injunction stopping unlicensed copyright conduct;
+- specific performance or a mandatory injunction requiring source delivery;
+- confidential source production in discovery;
+- a negotiated source-publication settlement; and
+- enforcement of an existing judgment or consent decree.
+
+Do not turn one category into another.
+
+### “Can they be forced to buy a commercial license?”
+
+Separate voluntary licensing and settlement from damages valuation. A
+commercial-license price may be evidence under an applicable damages theory;
+that does not itself create assent or empower a court to impose the contract.
+
+### “Does this license cover the whole product?”
+
+Do not answer from license-family labels such as “strong copyleft” or
+“file-level.” Retrieve the exact license/version and analyze the actual work,
+files, linking, copying, distribution/deployment, source definition, exceptions,
+and governing jurisdiction.
+
+### “Did this case prove the license is enforceable?”
+
+Identify the exact clause, claim, posture, holding, remedy, jurisdiction, and
+later history. A claim surviving dismissal, a default judgment, or a settlement
+does not establish the same proposition as a final contested appellate ruling.
+
+## Application to a project-specific license
+
+Answer the general doctrine first. Then compare the project's exact clause to
+the authority and identify every textual or factual difference that could
+change the result. A custom license should not inherit GPL, AGPL, MPL, or
+source-available case outcomes merely by analogy.
+
+For the FastLED draft specifically, preserve the attorney gate in
+`../LEGAL-REVIEW.md`; do not describe the release candidate as adopted,
+attorney-approved, OSI-approved, or judicially tested.
+
+## Output format
+
+Prefer this compact structure:
+
+```text
+Question and assumptions
+Short answer
+Controlling rule and authority
+Analogous authority and its posture
+Application
+What could change the answer
+Counsel-review questions
+Research/legal-review status
+```
+
+Link to the canonical matter memo and direct primary authority. Avoid long
+quotations and do not present an agent's prediction as a legal determination.

paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md

@@ -1,22 +1,40 @@
 # Future research scenarios
 
-These are candidate matters, not active assignments and not conclusions. Before
-starting one, search `INDEX.md`, define the relevant facts and jurisdiction,
-then assign the next matter ID.
+These are candidate matters, not active assignments or conclusions. The
+general research layer in PR-0001--PR-0020 should be reused before opening a
+new matter. Promote a scenario only when concrete facts, a target forum, or a
+new authority would materially change the answer.
 
-| Priority | Scenario | Why it could change a decision | Expected output |
+## High-priority follow-ups
+
+| Scenario | Existing starting point | Missing input or research | Expected output |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Exact-license, exact-forum enforcement analysis | PR-0002, PR-0003, PR-0004, PR-0006, PR-0012 | Operative version, conduct, claimant, requested relief, forum, and governing state or national law | Claim-and-remedy matrix tied to controlling authority |
+| AGPL section 13 network-only noncompliance | PR-0001, PR-0003, PR-0010, PR-0012 | Final merits authority, assent and copyright-nexus theory, actual service architecture, and selected forum | Docket-level update and forum-specific remedy analysis |
+| State-law source delivery or specific performance | PR-0005, PR-0007, PR-0008, PR-0012 | Selected state's formation, beneficiary, preemption, and equitable-remedy law | State-specific elements, defenses, and proposed relief limits |
+| Ownership, standing, and registration for a real codebase | PR-0008, PR-0014 | Per-file authorship, contributor/assignment records, registrations, release and infringement dates | Chain-of-title map and registration/remedy calendar |
+| Authenticated docket and later-history audit | PR-0003, PR-0004, COVERAGE.md | PACER or local-court access, unsealed dispositions, current appeal/finality records | Updated authority cards with confirmed disposition and actual relief |
+| Qualified foreign-source review | PR-0004, PR-0020 | Official full texts, certified or qualified translations, and local counsel in the selected country | Country-specific case table and translation provenance |
+
+## Fact-intensive follow-ups
+
+| Scenario | Existing starting point | Missing input or research | Expected output |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| High | FastLED §11.3 source-publication breach: remedies in the likely defendant forums | The current draft has a commercial-transfer trigger rather than AGPL network interaction, so the cause of action and equitable remedy may differ. | Jurisdiction-specific remedy matrix and pleading assumptions |
-| High | Standing and chain of title | A steward, contributor, copyright owner, customer, and association may have different claims and available remedies. | Claimant-by-claimant standing map and evidence checklist |
-| High | Copyright registration strategy | 17 U.S.C. §412 timing can determine access to statutory damages and attorney's fees. | Release-registration calendar and ownership prerequisites |
-| High | Cure, reinstatement, and past liability | Restoring future permission may not erase damages or exposure for earlier unlicensed acts. | Timeline scenarios for first and repeat violations |
-| Medium | Commercial-license value as damages evidence | A list price, negotiated fee, and reasonable royalty are not automatically interchangeable. | Evidentiary and valuation memo with contrary authority |
-| Medium | Source disclosure as specific performance | Availability may depend on claimant, contract theory, state law, adequacy of damages, and feasibility of supervision. | Jurisdiction comparison and requested-relief drafting notes |
-| Medium | Resellers, contract manufacturers, and exhaustion | Actor and transfer timing can determine who breached and what conduct can be enjoined. | Supply-chain fact patterns and responsibility matrix |
-| Medium | Covered code boundaries | Templates, headers, generated files, firmware, and linked components may produce different source obligations. | Artifact-by-artifact scope analysis |
-| Medium | Cross-border enforcement | Territorial limits, choice of law, service, and judgment enforcement may dominate the practical remedy. | Country-specific issue spotter for actual target markets |
-| Medium | Evidence preservation and pre-suit investigation | Public repository history, shipped binaries, offers, notices, and communications may be necessary to prove timing and scope. | Lawful evidence checklist and preservation protocol for counsel review |
-
-Do not research the entire backlog at once. Promote only the scenario needed for
-a concrete decision, and record any assumptions that substitute for missing
-facts.
+| Covered-work and Corresponding Source boundary | PR-0009, PR-0010 | Source tree, build graph, copied code, linking, containers, generated artifacts, delivery and network facts | Artifact-by-artifact obligation analysis |
+| Supply-chain responsibility | PR-0018 | Who copied, compiled, flashed, imported, distributed, controlled, knew, or induced; transaction timeline | Actor-by-conduct claim and evidence matrix |
+| Cure, reinstatement, and past exposure | PR-0011, PR-0015 | Exact cure clause, notice/knowledge dates, first or repeat breach, later conduct | Event timeline with forward permission and past-liability analysis |
+| Commercial-license value as damages evidence | PR-0013, PR-0014 | Registrations, comparable negotiated transactions, apportionment, causation, profits, and expert method | Damages model that does not mistake valuation for compelled assent |
+| Evidence preservation and source availability | PR-0016, PR-0017 | Lawful acquisition, versions, hashes, notices, repository history, product samples, custodians, and litigation posture | Counsel-reviewed preservation and authentication protocol |
+| Settlement or post-judgment compliance design | PR-0012, PR-0019 | Parties' authority, desired business outcome, monitorability, confidentiality, enforcement jurisdiction | Negotiated term sheet or order checklist clearly labeled by posture |
+| FastLED draft section 11.3 application | PR-0002 plus the relevant doctrine/remedy memos | Current draft text, adoption status, product transaction, target forum, ownership and registration facts | Separate project-specific analysis; no change to `LICENSE` without express authorization |
+
+## Refresh triggers
+
+Open a maintenance matter when a tracked docket reaches a material disposition,
+an official license or steward/OSI status changes, a statute or rule changes, a
+better primary source or translation becomes available, or counsel identifies a
+proposition requiring correction.
+
+Do not research the entire backlog at once. Record assumptions that substitute
+for missing facts, preserve negative searches, and keep every result pending
+legal review until an identified attorney approves it.