From 20a84b06ff609a7734c935f3dcdd9fdd74aeb7bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:08:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Draft research stewardship, publication safeguards, and provenance guidance --- CITATION.cff | 18 ++++++ governance/README.md | 35 ++++++++++++ governance/attribution-provenance.md | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++ governance/implementation-checklist.md | 42 ++++++++++++++ governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md | 34 +++++++++++ governance/licensing.md | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++ governance/publication-review.md | 59 +++++++++++++++++++ governance/references.md | 21 +++++++ governance/responsible-use.md | 34 +++++++++++ research/knowledge-power-and-stewardship.md | 48 ++++++++++++++++ 10 files changed, 415 insertions(+) create mode 100644 CITATION.cff create mode 100644 governance/README.md create mode 100644 governance/attribution-provenance.md create mode 100644 governance/implementation-checklist.md create mode 100644 governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md create mode 100644 governance/licensing.md create mode 100644 governance/publication-review.md create mode 100644 governance/references.md create mode 100644 governance/responsible-use.md create mode 100644 research/knowledge-power-and-stewardship.md diff --git a/CITATION.cff b/CITATION.cff new file mode 100644 index 00000000..35d9d224 --- /dev/null +++ b/CITATION.cff @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +cff-version: 1.2.0 +message: >- + Please cite the specific document, its identified contributors, and the exact + revision you used. This project-level citation is a fallback, not a claim of + sole authorship, peer review, or endorsement. It adds no license restrictions. +title: "Root Sequence: research commons" +authors: + - name: "Root Sequence" +url: "https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence" +preferred-citation: + type: generic + title: "Root Sequence: research commons" + authors: + - name: "Root Sequence" + url: "https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence" + notes: >- + Living, multi-document project. Cite the relevant file and exact Git revision; + retain document-level author, source, AI-assistance, and review-status records. diff --git a/governance/README.md b/governance/README.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..194da433 --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +# Research stewardship + +**Status:** proposed operational guidance; AI-assisted draft; author review pending. +**Prepared:** 2026-10-22. +**Scope:** publication, reuse, provenance, collaboration, and the boundaries of this research commons. + +Root Sequence should remain useful to people without treating openness as an obligation to disclose everything. These proposals distinguish what the project publishes, what its licenses actually permit, what collaborators expressly agree to, and what it asks people to do voluntarily. + +**Learning from a commons does not confer authority over it.** Equally, lawful independent learning, criticism, commercial use permitted by a license, or parallel discovery is not automatically exploitation. + +## Find the right safeguard + +| Question | Canonical document | +| --- | --- | +| Is this material ready and safe to publish? | [Publication review](publication-review.md) | +| What permissions exist, and what choices remain? | [Licensing decisions](licensing.md) and the [dated license audit](licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md) | +| How should authorship, sources, and AI assistance be recorded? | [Attribution and provenance](attribution-provenance.md) | +| How should reuse, collaboration, and concerns be handled? | [Responsible use and collaboration](responsible-use.md) | +| What is complete, and what requires a decision? | [Implementation checklist](implementation-checklist.md) | +| Which external sources support the legal/technical distinctions? | [References](references.md) | +| What is the underlying research question? | [Knowledge, institutional power, and stewardship](../research/knowledge-power-and-stewardship.md) | + +## What this does not do + +This is not a new license, a retroactive restriction, a contract with every reader, or a promise to control downstream ideas. The existing [CC0 dedication](../license), applicable file-specific terms, third-party rights, and law remain distinct from these proposals. Citation requests cannot turn CC0 into an attribution-required license. See [licensing](licensing.md). + +The proposals do not establish a governing body, represent other projects' consent, or change repository visibility. Public drafts remain public. The word `draft` means not adopted; it does not mean confidential. + +## Relationship to existing work + +[Project Stewardship](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/.github/blob/main/PROJECT_STEWARDSHIP.md) owns maintenance and documentation propagation. The [commons](../commons/README.md) owns broader commons practice and proposals. This directory owns the narrower publication/reuse procedure, not a competing account of the whole project. + +Project-specific safety, consent, archive, contributor, and release rules remain authoritative within their scope. Where rules conflict, surface the conflict and obtain a decision rather than silently overriding it. Do not copy private working records into public governance files. + +[Repository introduction](../README.md) · [Repository map](../root_map.md) · [Contribution guidance](../contributing.md) diff --git a/governance/attribution-provenance.md b/governance/attribution-provenance.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8eb91154 --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/attribution-provenance.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +# Attribution, authorship, and provenance + +**Status:** proposed convention; AI-assisted; author review pending. +**Purpose:** make contributions traceable without claiming ownership of every idea or mistaking a historical record for validation. + +## Credit the actual contribution + +Distinguish originating a question, connecting existing work, writing, editing, coding, testing, reviewing, maintaining, and supplying lived or community knowledge. Project initiation and curation do not establish sole authorship of every repository item. Credit prior work and contributors with the names and level of disclosure they consent to; do not expose private identities to strengthen a credit claim. + +For a specific result, cite its document-level authors and sources, exact path, version/commit, date where known, and relevant limitations. Do not invent a first-discovery date, DOI, affiliation, peer review, successful experiment, or author approval. The [root citation file](../CITATION.cff) identifies the project as a whole; it is not a substitute for item-level credit. + +GitHub recognizes root-level `CITATION.cff` metadata on the default branch.[^cff] While this change is a draft PR, the default-branch citation interface has not been changed. + +## Minimal provenance block + +Use visible metadata or existing frontmatter rather than creating a competing database. + +```yaml +title: "Exact title" +status: "working draft; author review pending" +canonical_path: "repository/path" +contributors: + - name: "approved public credit" + roles: ["specific contribution"] +first_documented: null +revised: "YYYY-MM-DD" +source_revision: "exact commit when available" +intellectual_sources: [] +permissions: "actual applicable notice, including exceptions" +ai_assistance: + used: true + tasks: ["only tasks actually performed"] + human_review: "pending or specific completed review" +``` + +`first_documented` means the earliest evidence located, not proof of universal novelty. A Git commit identifies a version; its date alone is not independent certification of first authorship. Retain original drafts, research notes, review decisions, and source links where appropriate, with private evidence kept private. + +## AI assistance + +Describe what the tools did and what humans actually contributed, checked, rejected, or revised. Do not add a human-author claim simply because a person approved a prompt, and do not infer all intellectual work was automated because AI assisted with expression or accessibility. + +The U.S. Copyright Office's 2025 guidance distinguishes sufficient human expressive authorship from purely generated material; AI assistance does not automatically defeat protection, and prompts alone do not establish it.[^ai] Provenance helps explain the work but does not guarantee copyright, novelty, or correctness. + +**Disclosure for this stewardship draft:** ChatGPT assisted with repository/source inspection, organization, drafting, and change preparation in response to Rae Lovejoy's request. The draft has not received Rae's passage-by-passage review or legal review. The request to prepare it is not evidence of review of every sentence. + +## Citation request versus legal obligation + +Ask readers to acknowledge useful contributions even when the applicable license does not require it. Clearly label that request as scholarly/community practice, not a new condition on CC0 material. For material under an attribution license, follow that license's actual conditions and any lawful exceptions; consult the [license decision guide](licensing.md). + +Suggested wording: + +> Please cite the specific document and revision you used, credit its identified contributors and sources, and distinguish your adaptations from the original. This request does not add restrictions to the applicable license or imply endorsement. + +## Versioned release practice + +For a reviewed release, record the exact revision, review status, contributors, scope, limitations, and source list. Consider an independently hosted archival deposit only after a separate public-disclosure decision. No archive deposit, DOI, public timestamping service, or new release is created by this proposal. + +## References + +[^cff]: GitHub, [About CITATION files](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-citation-files), checked 2026-10-22. +[^ai]: U.S. Copyright Office, [NewsNet 1060: Copyrightability report](https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html), 2025-01-29; checked 2026-10-22. + +[Research stewardship](README.md) diff --git a/governance/implementation-checklist.md b/governance/implementation-checklist.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..35e5fc1c --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/implementation-checklist.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +# Research stewardship — implementation checklist + +**Prepared:** 2026-10-22. +**Status convention:** checked means the draft artifact or inspection exists, not that a policy has been adopted or protection guaranteed. + +## Prepared in this proposal + +- [x] Record a preliminary public licensing baseline, including scope limits and the Liberation Mass conflict. +- [x] Draft public/limited-review/restricted publication handling and a pre-disclosure checklist. +- [x] Draft attribution, contribution-role, AI-assistance, and exact-version provenance guidance. +- [x] Add project citation metadata without inventing a release, DOI, or validation claim. +- [x] Distinguish responsible-use expectations, actual license obligations, and negotiated agreements. +- [x] Draft non-endorsement, reciprocal collaboration, and proportionate concern-handling guidance. +- [x] Add the bounded knowledge/power research question and navigation to the new material. + +## Decisions before adoption or a legal change + +- [ ] Review the wording and identify who may authorize each project's publication boundary. +- [ ] Resolve the Liberation Mass licensing conflict with affected contribution history and rights holders. +- [ ] Decide licensing for future separable writing, separately from code, data, and media. +- [ ] Clarify permissions in projects without a top-level license file; preserve existing grants. +- [ ] Complete a rights-and-consent review of third-party contributions and assets where relevant. +- [ ] Adopt any project-specific procedure through that project's normal review; do not treat this draft as organizational consent. +- [ ] Review and merge this documentation only after an explicit decision; no auto-merge. + +## Private professional preparation — keep outside public repositories + +- [ ] Verify a dated preexisting-work inventory, versions, rights, collaborators, and any earlier obligations. +- [ ] Curate the minimum sufficient application samples; record what is actually sent and under which terms. +- [ ] Review hiring exercise, portal, confidentiality, and IP-assignment language before accepting it. +- [ ] Obtain a written, agreed background-work exclusion and review treatment of future independent work where appropriate. +- [ ] Keep professional legal advice and agreements in personally controlled private storage. + +These private tasks have no public evidence attachments. Their checklist entries are not an invitation to upload the underlying records here. + +## Validation and rollout + +Validate changed links, metadata, preservation of existing license files, and absence of newly introduced private information. Repository-wide checks must be reported as run, failed, or not run; a documentation-only change is not an excuse to invent test results. Keep related unmerged proposals separate, refresh overlapping branches before merge, and record decisions rather than silently resolving them. + +No monitoring automation, archival deposit, trademark registration, patent action, signature, agreement, or legal representation is created by this proposal. + +[Research stewardship](README.md) diff --git a/governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md b/governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6865c8f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +# Public licensing baseline — 2026-10-22 + +**Status:** source-based preliminary audit; not legal clearance or a file-by-file rights audit. +**Method:** inspected connected GitHub repository metadata, top-level trees, selected license/README/contribution files, and relevant existing PR descriptions. Public observations only; no private repository contents are included here. + +## Coverage and findings + +| Public repository | Observed evidence | Finding / next action | +| --- | --- | --- | +| `root-sequence` | [`license`](../license), README, and contribution guidance at `a8b0f805d1c4bbd14c52845b4861854b9ebc6e8f` | CC0 declaration. Preserve existing grants; map any exceptions and distinguish code, prose, assets, and third-party work before changing future terms. | +| `liberated-intelligence` | [`license`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberated-intelligence/blob/ad77e8b56178288ef12fa08e6e16c2c1393fa49a/license) and README | CC0 declaration. Citation requests must remain requests for this covered material. | +| `universal-coherence-framework` | [`LICENSE`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/universal-coherence-framework/blob/e1c7b28803f58bea4a5b3a200063d5f579260b50/LICENSE), README, publication/model declarations | CC0, not MIT. Existing citation metadata should be preserved and checked at the item level. | +| `liberation-mass` | [`LICENSE`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberation-mass/blob/4c791af6014a6ceedcb2e92cc4622f7a5076d485/LICENSE) versus [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberation-mass/blob/4c791af6014a6ceedcb2e92cc4622f7a5076d485/CONTRIBUTING.md) | **Conflict:** root license is CC0; contribution terms say CC BY-SA 4.0. Trace affected contributions and obtain a deliberate resolution. Do not assume all content can be re-dedicated. Existing [PR #7](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberation-mass/pull/7) also preserves this unresolved issue. | +| `beinghumane-guide` | [`LICENSE`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/beinghumane-guide/blob/main/LICENSE), blob `463788c7f9f946e196e14630aa39d781e2cbae1f` | MIT declaration. Confirm intended scope for site code versus prose, letters, media, and later contributions; do not silently reinterpret existing permissions. | +| `.github` | Root directory listing and Project Stewardship | No top-level LICENSE/COPYING file observed. This does not establish that no terms appear elsewhere; review content-specific declarations. Do not inherit another repository's CC0 by association. | +| `wiki` | Root tree `f15a718d932c1571d85396b85250b93d8953c6a4` | No top-level LICENSE/COPYING file observed. Review entity source permissions and any text-level declarations separately. | +| `root-sequence-discussions` | Root tree `e93ec409bf3f490dbce47ae242921a5ccb276b1e` | No top-level LICENSE/COPYING file observed. Files, issue comments, and discussion contributions need separate rights analysis; no blanket contributor consent inferred. | +| `existential-euphoria` | Root tree `67382ef196390abcc498d9b504061e5b4f6cae6f` and README | No top-level LICENSE/COPYING file observed. Clarify intended permissions before adding a blanket license; cited media and references do not become project-owned works. | + +The repository listing exposed nine public repositories in scope. This baseline does not certify the absence of per-file notices, dependency licenses, embedded copyrighted media, contributor rights, prior grants, secrets, or privacy issues. A missing root license file is a discoverability finding, not proof of complete absence of permission. + +## Priority decisions + +1. Resolve the Liberation Mass conflict by tracing provenance, not merely replacing one label. +2. Define whether new separable research prose should remain CC0 or use CC BY / CC BY-SA. The decision is not made here. +3. Clarify mixed code/content scope in Being Human(e) and any similar repositories. +4. Review the four repositories without a top-level license file for existing text-level grants and contributor rights before adding one. +5. Review third-party assets, datasets, and dependency licenses before any comprehensive licensing claim. + +## What changed in this pass + +Documentation, citation guidance, a publication-review procedure, and a decision checklist are proposed. **No license text, repository visibility, access membership, public release, or existing contributor grant was changed.** Existing unmerged commons and professional-presentation proposals remain separate. The proposed procedures are not evidence of completed legal review. + +[Licensing decisions](licensing.md) · [Implementation checklist](implementation-checklist.md) · [Research stewardship](README.md) diff --git a/governance/licensing.md b/governance/licensing.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d494765b --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/licensing.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +# Licensing decisions and limits + +**Status:** decision framework, not a license change; AI-assisted; author/legal review pending. +**Prepared:** 2026-10-22. + +## Existing permissions remain + +The main repository, Liberated Intelligence, and UCF currently declare CC0; other projects differ or need clarification. The [audit](licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md) records the inspected evidence and its limits. + +CC0 is intended as an irrevocable dedication/waiver with a fallback license. It permits commercial reuse of covered material without an attribution requirement. Changing a label now does not recapture rights already relinquished. A later, independently copyrightable contribution can have separate terms only to the extent the contributor holds the relevant rights; this does not restrict the older material inside it.[^cc0] + +Copyright protects qualifying expression rather than the underlying idea, system, or method. A license is therefore not a general veto over learning, independent implementation, or lawful exceptions.[^ideas] A public GitHub repository is not automatically open-source licensed.[^github] + +## Choose by material and purpose + +These are candidates for a separate decision, **not newly applied defaults**. + +| Material / purpose | Candidate | Principal tradeoff | +| --- | --- | --- | +| Material deliberately given to the public without reuse conditions | CC0 | Maximum reuse; no attribution obligation. | +| New research prose or diagrams where credit matters and broad uptake is desired | CC BY 4.0 | Commercial reuse remains allowed; qualifying sharing requires attribution and change/license information. | +| New prose or diagrams where keeping distributed adaptations in a commons matters | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Adds ShareAlike for shared adaptations; does not require independent implementations of ideas to be published. | +| New material where noncommercial reuse is a deliberate priority | CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 | Restricts covered commercial uses, but is not an ethical-use test; it may exclude beneficial uses too. | +| Software | Evaluate a software license separately, including permissive or copyleft choices | Review dependencies, contribution rights, distribution and service models, compatibility, and desired obligations before selecting. | +| Confidential collaboration | Limited disclosure plus an appropriate express agreement | Terms must be agreed; a README request is not a negotiated contract. | + +See the CC license summaries and software guidance in [references](references.md). CC advises against using its content licenses for software. Do not append an improvised harmful-use clause to an established license while retaining its standard name. Open-source software licenses cannot discriminate against persons/groups or fields of endeavor; a use-restricted approach must be described honestly rather than labeled OSI-compatible open source.[^osi] + +## Proposed decision order + +1. Keep existing grants and release history intact. +2. Resolve conflicting declarations and distinguish third-party material before publishing a new blanket statement. +3. For **future separable writing**, compare CC BY and CC BY-SA first; retain CC0 where unrestricted reuse is truly intended. Do not automatically choose NC or impose commercial permissions across the ecosystem. +4. Evaluate software, data, media, and third-party contributions on their own terms. +5. Before applying a new choice, record exact paths, rights holders, effective revision, treatment of legacy material, contributor consent, and the compatibility check. Update the license notice, README, and contribution guidance together in a dedicated reviewed change. + +No repository visibility change, rights assignment, relicensing, contributor agreement, patent filing, or defensive publication is authorized by this document. Potential patent or confidentiality decisions need qualified advice before disclosure; a timestamp is not a legal opinion. + +## Decision record + +```yaml +status: proposed +material_and_paths: [] +rights_holders_verified: false +existing_terms_and_versions: [] +new_candidate: null +reason_and_tradeoffs: null +legacy_material_treatment: "Preserve previously granted rights." +third_party_and_contributor_review: pending +approval: null +effective_revision: null +``` + +## References + +[^cc0]: Creative Commons, [CC0 legal code](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.en) and [FAQ](https://creativecommons.org/faq/), checked 2026-10-22. +[^ideas]: U.S. Copyright Office, [What does copyright protect?](https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html), checked 2026-10-22. +[^github]: GitHub, [Licensing a repository](https://docs.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository), checked 2026-10-22. +[^osi]: Open Source Initiative, [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd), especially sections 5–6, checked 2026-10-22. + +[Research stewardship](README.md) diff --git a/governance/publication-review.md b/governance/publication-review.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d0798b46 --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/publication-review.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +# Publication review + +**Status:** proposed procedure; AI-assisted; author review pending. +**Scope:** review before first disclosure, including public branches, pull requests, issues, attachments, releases, and deployment artifacts. + +## Three disclosure levels + +| Level | What belongs here | Handling | +| --- | --- | --- | +| Public commons | Public-safe questions, reviewed explanations, selected examples, and deliberately shareable drafts | Record sources, evidence status, authorship, scope, and applicable permissions. A public draft may still be unfinished. | +| Limited review | Unpublished research, draft implementations, or collaboration material needing review | Use a genuinely access-controlled location; share only the smallest useful excerpt with identified reviewers. Record any agreed confidentiality and reuse terms. | +| Restricted | Personal or participant information, credentials, security-sensitive details, contractual confidences, or details with a concrete serious-harm pathway | Do not publish by default. Obtain the relevant person's consent or specialist review where appropriate; produce a safer abstract only when justified. | + +These are handling decisions, not badges of importance. Incompleteness alone is not dangerousness, and an interesting idea is not automatically a sensitive invention. Assess the harm mechanism, affected people, likelihood, severity, and incremental enabling detail. + +**Private material must never be placed in a public branch for review.** The existing [research publication boundary](../research/README.md#publication-boundary) already makes this distinction. A label, `.gitignore`, or unmerged PR is not an access control. Making a public repository private later does not make its existing public forks private.[^visibility] + +## Before sharing: the smallest sufficient review + +1. **Identify the exact artifact.** Record repository/file, revision or hash, intended audience, purpose, and whether it is already public. Do not backdate approval. +2. **Separate content types and rights.** Distinguish writing, code, images, data, quotations, third-party contributions, and generated material. Check the relevant [licensing decision](licensing.md); unresolved ownership is not permission. +3. **Check people and obligations.** Remove unnecessary personal details, private identifiers, unpublished collaborator material, employer/client confidences, and secrets. Consent to one use is not consent to every use. +4. **Assess concrete risks and alternatives.** Consider harmful enablement, misleading claims, decontextualization, confidentiality, and premature disclosure. Compare full release with a summary, synthetic example, redaction, delay, or no release. Do not assume attribution fixes harm. +5. **Record provenance and limits.** Identify human contributions, AI assistance, prior work, evidence status, known weaknesses, and the exact version. See [attribution](attribution-provenance.md). +6. **Authorize the boundary crossing.** The responsible person explicitly approves the exact public-safe version and destination. Unresolved serious risk or missing permission means hold. Research approval and website deployment approval remain separate. +7. **Verify the actual release.** Inspect the rendered files, links, attachments, commit history exposed by the chosen sharing method, and automation outputs. Record what was actually published, not merely what was planned. + +## Minimal release record + +Use this block in the artifact's own maintained record; keep confidential reasons in an access-controlled record, not a public issue. + +```yaml +artifact: "repository/path" +revision: "exact commit or file hash" +current_access: "public | limited-review | restricted" +proposed_audience: "specific audience" +purpose: "why this disclosure is useful" +rights_and_consent: "checked sources, applicable terms, unresolved items" +risk_and_alternative: "specific pathway and safer alternative considered" +evidence_status: "hypothesis | normative | tested | other, with details" +human_and_ai_contributions: "documented roles; no inferred authorship" +approved_by: null +approved_on: null +approved_scope: null +publication_destination: null +verification_record: null +``` + +A blank approval is not approval. Record an owner and an event-based review point for a hold, such as completed rights review; do not invent an expiry that automatically releases material. + +## An accidental disclosure + +Stop further dissemination, preserve a private incident record, and use the existing [security process](../SECURITY.md) for security issues or [private concern route](../contributing.md#choose-the-right-contribution-path) for other sensitive matters. Rotate exposed credentials where relevant. Deletion is not proof that copies no longer exist. Obtain help before rewriting shared history or making legal demands; retain the evidence needed to understand the event. + +## References + +[^visibility]: GitHub, [Setting repository visibility](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/managing-repository-settings/setting-repository-visibility), checked 2026-10-22. + +[Research stewardship](README.md) diff --git a/governance/references.md b/governance/references.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a2090aec --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/references.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Stewardship reference notes + +**Checked:** 2026-10-22. These sources support the stated legal/technical distinctions; the workflow choices are Root Sequence proposals, not requirements imposed by the sources. This is general information, not legal advice for a particular agreement. + +| Source | Relevance / limit | +| --- | --- | +| [Creative Commons CC0 legal code](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.en) | Waiver, fallback, irrevocability, and rights outside CC0's scope. | +| [Creative Commons FAQ](https://creativecommons.org/faq/) | Irrevocable grants, rights clearance, separate material, and content-versus-software licensing. | +| [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en) | Attribution and permitted commercial reuse; deed is a summary, not the complete legal code. | +| [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en) | ShareAlike obligations for covered adaptations when shared. | +| [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en) | Noncommercial limitation; not a general harmful-use filter. | +| [GitHub: Licensing a repository](https://docs.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository) | Public visibility and platform permissions differ from an open-source license. | +| [Open Source Initiative: Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd) | Open-source software licenses cannot discriminate against groups or fields of endeavor. | +| [U.S. Copyright Office: What does copyright protect?](https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html) | Expression versus ideas, systems, and methods. | +| [U.S. Copyright Office: NewsNet 1060](https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html) | 2025 human-authorship / AI-assistance guidance; not a determination about any RS work. | +| [GitHub: About CITATION files](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-citation-files) | Citation metadata and non-software preferred-citation types. | +| [GitHub: Setting repository visibility](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/managing-repository-settings/setting-repository-visibility) | Existing public forks do not become private when the upstream repository does. | + +Repository observations are linked separately in the [dated baseline](licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md). A source supporting a general rule does not establish ownership, infringement, novelty, or enforceability in a specific case. + +[Research stewardship](README.md) diff --git a/governance/responsible-use.md b/governance/responsible-use.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..bf888890 --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/responsible-use.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +# Responsible use, collaboration, and representation + +**Status:** proposed community expectations; AI-assisted; author review pending. +**Not a new license or a contract with every reader.** Existing permissions and legal exceptions remain unchanged. + +## The distinction + +People can learn from, critique, adapt, and develop work under its actual permissions without becoming project members or representatives. Root Sequence's wish for humane outcomes is not a claim to control other people's independent thought. + +The expectations below describe the cooperation the project seeks. For already CC0-covered material they are requests, not newly enforceable copyright conditions. Where a collaboration needs enforceable obligations, negotiate an appropriate express agreement before sharing additional unpublished material. See [licensing](licensing.md). + +## Requested practice + +- **Preserve context and credit.** Identify sources and relevant limitations; label adaptations. Do not present an exploratory question as an established finding, or AI-assisted draft text as reviewed human testimony. +- **Respect agency and consent.** Do not use publication as an excuse to expose participants, infer consent to unrelated uses, or conceal manipulative, discriminatory, coercive, or surveillance applications. Assess harms to people beyond the original creator. +- **Avoid misleading representation.** Do not imply Root Sequence endorsement, affiliation, sponsorship, certification, or authority to speak for its contributors without authorization. Accurate reference, criticism, and lawful nominative use are different from claiming an endorsement. This is not a claim of registered trademark rights. +- **Make collaboration reciprocal.** Discuss contributor credit, maintenance, benefit-sharing, payment where labor is requested, publication review, access, exit, and dispute handling. Benefits need not be only commercial, and there is no automatic royalty or hiring entitlement for publicly licensed reuse. + +## Before an institutional collaboration + +Record the actual scope and parties; distinguish already-public work from unpublished contributions; agree on deliverables and payment; identify background work and any newly commissioned work; define confidentiality, internal access, retention, model-training/use permissions where relevant, publication review, attribution, and authorized representation. Preserve previously granted public rights and the rights of other contributors. Do not transfer broad rights through an ambiguous intake form or submission portal without reviewing its terms. + +An organization's nonprofit status or stated mission is not a substitute for checking the proposed conduct and agreement. Equally, commercial status alone is not evidence of misuse. + +## A concern or suspected misuse + +1. Preserve exact public passages, URLs, revisions, dates, and the relevant terms privately. Do not gather unrelated personal information or use covert tracking. +2. Separate resemblance or influence from copying, breach of an agreement, misleading endorsement, privacy harm, or an unlawful act. Record uncertainty and possible independent development. +3. Choose a proportionate response: request a correction or credit, clarify non-endorsement, seek a discussion, stop optional future collaboration, or seek qualified advice where concrete rights or harm are at issue. +4. Use the existing [security route](../SECURITY.md) for vulnerabilities and the [private concern route](../contributing.md#choose-the-right-contribution-path) for sensitive non-security matters. Do not post allegations or confidential evidence in a public issue by default. + +No guaranteed response time, surveillance program, automated accusation, or legal enforcement service is established here. A takedown request should not be used merely to prevent lawful learning from ideas. + +[Research stewardship](README.md) · [Publication review](publication-review.md) diff --git a/research/knowledge-power-and-stewardship.md b/research/knowledge-power-and-stewardship.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0909c231 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/knowledge-power-and-stewardship.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +# Knowledge, institutional power, and stewardship + +**Document role:** bounded research question and proposed comparison method. +**Status:** exploratory, AI-assisted seed; author review pending. +**Evidence status:** questions, hypotheses, and normative choices; no empirical findings or allegation about a particular organization. +**Prepared:** 2026-10-22. + +## Question + +How can independent research remain useful and widely accessible when institutions with greater development, distribution, legal, or financial capacity act on it—and which arrangements preserve contributor agency, public benefit, and accountability without enclosing knowledge? + +## Separate the outcomes + +Influence, recognition, lawful reuse, compensation, ownership of an implementation, project representation, and social benefit are different outcomes. One can occur without another. A missing citation, an exploitative commissioned task, a misleading endorsement, and a harmful application require different evidence and different responses. + +A useful question is not just “who had the idea?” but “who could act on it, under which permissions, who bore the costs, and who had a meaningful opportunity to contest the consequences?” This is a proposed analytical lens, not a claim that every unequal collaboration is exploitative. + +## Competing hypotheses + +- Clear provenance and usable citation metadata may improve credit and discoverability, but may not change how benefits are distributed. +- Reciprocal terms may keep some adaptations accessible, while also increasing transaction or compatibility costs for small, beneficial users. +- Selective disclosure may protect agency or reduce harm, while also reducing scrutiny, participation, and the chance of useful independent development. +- An institution may generate genuine public benefit without hiring or paying the originator; that does not erase separate questions about honesty, consent, agreed obligations, or concentrated control. +- Multiple people may reach similar ideas independently. Similarity alone is not evidence of extraction. + +## A bounded comparison + +Use a public-safe, synthetic research example rather than unpublished work or unsuspecting participants. Compare four documented arrangements: unrestricted sharing with provenance; attribution-based sharing; reciprocal sharing; and limited review with an express agreement. + +For each arrangement record: what is shared; who can inspect or modify it; who can build on it; attribution obligations versus requests; possible excluded beneficial uses; who maintains it; how participants can exit; what happens when goals diverge; and what recourse actually exists. + +Before collecting real cases, specify inclusion criteria, consent/privacy handling, and an evidence standard. Measure outcomes separately—accuracy of credit, useful uptake, accessibility, contributor burden, decision influence, and distribution of benefits/costs—rather than collapsing them into a single “coherence” or “ethical” score. Record counterexamples and failures of the comparison itself. + +No experiment has been run. No evidence of employer copying or harmful deployment is asserted. + +## Legal and conceptual limits + +Copyright does not generally reserve the underlying ideas or methods to their author.[^copyright] Therefore a documentation license cannot by itself deliver all the agency and accountability goals described here. The [licensing guide](../governance/licensing.md) separates existing rights, future choices, and agreements; the [stewardship procedure](../governance/README.md) is a practical proposal, not evidence that those goals have been achieved. + +## Relationship to existing work + +The [Root Sequence research method](method.md) supplies the route–compare–test–revise approach. The [commons](../commons/README.md) remains the broader practical home. [Liberated Intelligence](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberated-intelligence) can develop the narrower agency and intelligence questions without inheriting this note as a conclusion. The Wiki should index names and provenance rather than duplicate this treatment. + +## References + +[^copyright]: U.S. Copyright Office, [What does copyright protect?](https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html), checked 2026-10-22. + +[Research index](README.md) · [Research stewardship](../governance/README.md) From a527b53d263510e1d10867552eccf04ba1bb4604 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:09:38 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/7] Link proposed research stewardship and citation guidance from the front door --- README.md | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index faff415e..8fb46669 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ The Liberation Cycle, Visibility Loop, and Roots → Signals → Growth → Frui - [`site/`](site/README.md) — reader-facing Public Seed website source; not a replacement for research or the Wiki - [`research/`](research/README.md) — bounded research inquiries and versioned synthesis papers; underlying concepts and evidence retain their canonical homes - [`research/methods/`](research/methods/README.md) — shared error-correcting inquiry methods, including epistemic contrast and deliberative inquiry +- [`governance/`](governance/README.md) — proposed research-publication, licensing, attribution, and collaboration guidance; author review pending - [`founding-texts/`](founding-texts/README.md) — founding texts, early models, manifestos, normative essays, and historical orientations - [`systems/`](systems/README.md) — analytical principles, models, and methods for understanding system behavior - [`concepts/`](concepts/README.md) — shared definitions, cross-project frameworks, design principles, and methods @@ -148,6 +149,12 @@ This convention is intended to keep repository work self-indexing rather than re --- +## Research stewardship — proposed + +[Research stewardship](governance/README.md) collects the publication-review checklist, licensing baseline, provenance conventions, and responsible-use expectations. These are AI-assisted, review-pending proposals, not new restrictions on the existing CC0 dedication. [Citation metadata](CITATION.cff) helps identify the project; cite specific documents and revisions wherever possible. + +--- + ## 🔄 Use & Remix **CC0 / Public Domain** From 01a1587595a190f217752126bddcbe30c954049b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:09:58 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/7] Index the knowledge and power inquiry and proposed publication review --- research/README.md | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/research/README.md b/research/README.md index 8f8f0851..69fb7e12 100644 --- a/research/README.md +++ b/research/README.md @@ -19,10 +19,11 @@ This directory holds bounded research inquiries and versioned papers that synthe ## Research areas - [Conscious Systems](conscious-systems/README.md) — **exploratory, AI-assisted seed; author review pending**. Starts with [what can change about a mind while preserving consciousness](conscious-systems/what-can-we-change-about-a-mind.md), separating experience from report, capability, and authority. +- [Knowledge, institutional power, and stewardship](knowledge-power-and-stewardship.md) — **exploratory, AI-assisted seed; author review pending**. Compares recognition, reuse, agency, and benefit-sharing without asserting that extraction has occurred. ## Cross-cutting related work -- [Adaptive continuity / dynamic coherence — intellectual lineage and prior art](dynamic-coherence-lineage.md) — **targeted related-work note; not a novelty finding or systematic review**. Traces state/parameter change, ultrastability, requisite variety, double-loop learning, resilience engineering, sustained adaptability, adaptive management/governance, path dependence, and second-order cybernetics; also records prior uses of the phrase “dynamic coherence.” +- [Adaptive continuity / dynamic coherence — intellectual lineage and prior art](dynamic-coherence-lineage.md) — **targeted related-work note; not a novelty finding or systematic review**. Traces state/parameter change, ultrtrastability, requisite variety, double-loop learning, resilience engineering, sustained adaptability, adaptive management/governance, path dependence, and second-order cybernetics; also records prior uses of the phrase “dynamic coherence.” - [Reading Trails](reading-trails/README.md) — **curated brain-food maps**, separate from claim-level bibliographies: archives, societies, courses, old magazines, reading lists, practitioner hubs, and other places worth wandering. The first trail covers [systems, cybernetics, complexity, and adaptive systems](reading-trails/systems-cybernetics-complexity.md). ## Living papers @@ -35,4 +36,6 @@ A research area holds a bounded question; a paper proposes a synthesis. Underlyi Public branches and pull requests in this repository are public. They are not private review spaces. Only public-safe synthesis belongs here; private notes and unpublished fiction retain their existing homes and permissions. Website presentation is separate and requires an explicit publication pass. +The [proposed publication-review procedure](../governance/publication-review.md) adds a practical pre-disclosure checklist without replacing existing project-specific consent or release rules. Its author review remains pending. + [Repository map](../root_map.md) · [Contribution guidance](../contributing.md) From 4eac28b396a164c21dd8dd255526c8a2240b2fb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:10:52 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 4/7] Map the proposed research stewardship home without changing project boundaries --- root_map.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/root_map.md b/root_map.md index 6fb173bf..773a2818 100644 --- a/root_map.md +++ b/root_map.md @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ Do not compress every kind of status into one word. - [`founding-texts/`](founding-texts/) — founding texts, early models, manifestos, normative essays, and historical orientations. - [`concepts/`](concepts/) — shared vocabulary, cross-project frameworks, design principles, and methods. - [`research/`](research/README.md) — bounded research inquiries and versioned synthesis papers that connect existing work without replacing its canonical sources. +- [`governance/`](governance/README.md) — proposed research-publication, licensing, provenance, and collaboration procedures; not a new governing body or an override of project-specific rules. - [`analysis/`](analysis/) — diagnosis of systems, power, capitalism, infrastructure, surveillance, and related conditions. - [`ideology/`](ideology/) — myths, philosophies, and narratives that justify or contest power. - [`systems/`](systems/) — analytical principles, structure, dependency, stress, failure, feedback, recovery, coherence, and adaptation. @@ -87,6 +88,7 @@ Root-level orientation files: - [`THOUGHT_ROUTING.md`](THOUGHT_ROUTING.md) — capture and placement convention for new material. - [`hello-world.md`](hello-world.md) — early public orientation text. - [`contributing.md`](contributing.md) — contribution guidance. +- [`CITATION.cff`](CITATION.cff) — project-level citation fallback; specific works retain their own contributors, sources, revisions, and review status. - [`license`](license) — repository license text. Fragments already have a canonical home under [`commons/fragments/`](commons/fragments/). A raw note that is not yet public-facing or deliberately fragmentary should remain in a temporary capture system until it is ready to enter the repository. @@ -119,6 +121,7 @@ What connects several layers into a bounded inquiry or versioned synthesis? → research What can be shared? → commons +How should publication and reuse be handled? → governance (proposed) What is a temporary project seed? → incubator What shaped its values? → founding-texts What is it called, From 5a992ffe3d3aefb21d165d427ed0ac3ca2ebeb1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:11:23 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 5/7] Record the proposed research stewardship home in project context --- PROJECT-CONTEXT.md | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/PROJECT-CONTEXT.md b/PROJECT-CONTEXT.md index dfab2e92..25b628e8 100644 --- a/PROJECT-CONTEXT.md +++ b/PROJECT-CONTEXT.md @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ It is not the whole organization and does not absorb project-specific implementa | What is this repository? | [`README.md`](README.md) | | How does Root Sequence research across fields? | [`research/method.md`](research/method.md) and [`research/method-router.md`](research/method-router.md) | | Which shared methods support evidence-weighted inquiry and collective judgment? | [`research/methods/README.md`](research/methods/README.md), [`research/methods/epistemic-contrast.md`](research/methods/epistemic-contrast.md), and [`research/methods/deliberative-inquiry.md`](research/methods/deliberative-inquiry.md) | +| Where are the proposed publication, licensing, provenance, and reuse safeguards? | [`governance/README.md`](governance/README.md); review-pending guidance, not adopted restrictions | | How does the organization connect? | [`ECOSYSTEM.md`](ECOSYSTEM.md) | | How is this repository organized? | [`root_map.md`](root_map.md) | | Where should a new thought go? | [`THOUGHT_ROUTING.md`](THOUGHT_ROUTING.md) | @@ -37,6 +38,8 @@ The repository contains active and historical writing, sourced research scaffold `research/`, including `research/methods/`, `systems/`, and `concepts/` hold current inquiry; `analysis/`, `ideology/`, and `futures/` apply or extend it; `founding-texts/` preserves origins; `commons/` produces reusable artifacts; `site/` is a reader-facing projection; `cli/` contains experiments; `incubator/` holds temporary, explicitly non-canonical project seeds pending migration or a final home. +`governance/` holds proposed research-publication, licensing, attribution, and collaboration procedures. It does not replace broader commons work, organization-level maintenance stewardship, or project-specific consent and release rules. The procedures and project-level `CITATION.cff` add no restrictions to existing licenses. + ## Ecosystem connections - **Focused inquiries:** Liberated Intelligence and UCF develop narrower questions. @@ -54,7 +57,7 @@ These are typed transformations, not a command hierarchy. - Treat relationships—dependencies, interfaces, feedbacks, authority, translations, flows, conditions, and histories—as first-class objects of inquiry. - Route mechanisms to the fields and methods that study them, then reconnect findings without erasing domain differences. -- Use epistemic contrast before convergence and deliberative inquiry before consequential collective judgment; preserve uncertainty, dissent, and revision conditions. +- Use epistemic contrast before convergence and deliberative inquiry before consequential collective judgment or authorization; preserve uncertainty, dissent, and revision conditions. - Preserve one canonical home and link rather than copying undifferentiated material. - Distinguish evidence, interpretation, hypothesis, normative position, and fiction. - Treat disagreement and failed connections as information. From 7ebd265dd8b3aebc5039ad7f234668560d49da11 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:11:42 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 6/7] Preserve original ultrastability wording in the research index --- research/README.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/research/README.md b/research/README.md index 69fb7e12..24ee81b7 100644 --- a/research/README.md +++ b/research/README.md @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ This directory holds bounded research inquiries and versioned papers that synthe ## Cross-cutting related work -- [Adaptive continuity / dynamic coherence — intellectual lineage and prior art](dynamic-coherence-lineage.md) — **targeted related-work note; not a novelty finding or systematic review**. Traces state/parameter change, ultrtrastability, requisite variety, double-loop learning, resilience engineering, sustained adaptability, adaptive management/governance, path dependence, and second-order cybernetics; also records prior uses of the phrase “dynamic coherence.” +- [Adaptive continuity / dynamic coherence — intellectual lineage and prior art](dynamic-coherence-lineage.md) — **targeted related-work note; not a novelty finding or systematic review**. Traces state/parameter change, ultrastability, requisite variety, double-loop learning, resilience engineering, sustained adaptability, adaptive management/governance, path dependence, and second-order cybernetics; also records prior uses of the phrase “dynamic coherence.” - [Reading Trails](reading-trails/README.md) — **curated brain-food maps**, separate from claim-level bibliographies: archives, societies, courses, old magazines, reading lists, practitioner hubs, and other places worth wandering. The first trail covers [systems, cybernetics, complexity, and adaptive systems](reading-trails/systems-cybernetics-complexity.md). ## Living papers From 8590f16c6bf8ea2fd010f9fe27be9b53006823a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rae Lovejoy Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:39:13 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 7/7] Fix stewardship citation guidance and record validation --- governance/attribution-provenance.md | 2 +- governance/implementation-checklist.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md | 4 +-- 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/attribution-provenance.md b/governance/attribution-provenance.md index 8eb91154..df366efa 100644 --- a/governance/attribution-provenance.md +++ b/governance/attribution-provenance.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Distinguish originating a question, connecting existing work, writing, editing, For a specific result, cite its document-level authors and sources, exact path, version/commit, date where known, and relevant limitations. Do not invent a first-discovery date, DOI, affiliation, peer review, successful experiment, or author approval. The [root citation file](../CITATION.cff) identifies the project as a whole; it is not a substitute for item-level credit. -GitHub recognizes root-level `CITATION.cff` metadata on the default branch.[^cff] While this change is a draft PR, the default-branch citation interface has not been changed. +GitHub recognizes root-level `CITATION.cff` metadata on the default branch.[^cff] A citation file proposed only on a pull-request branch does not update that interface. Once the file is present on the default branch, GitHub uses it for the repository's citation prompt; this does not establish item-level authorship, completed review, or policy adoption. ## Minimal provenance block diff --git a/governance/implementation-checklist.md b/governance/implementation-checklist.md index 35e5fc1c..5ab0b664 100644 --- a/governance/implementation-checklist.md +++ b/governance/implementation-checklist.md @@ -37,6 +37,45 @@ These private tasks have no public evidence attachments. Their checklist entries Validate changed links, metadata, preservation of existing license files, and absence of newly introduced private information. Repository-wide checks must be reported as run, failed, or not run; a documentation-only change is not an excuse to invent test results. Keep related unmerged proposals separate, refresh overlapping branches before merge, and record decisions rather than silently resolving them. +### Validation record — 2026-10-22 + +Scope: PR #50 at `7ebd265dd8b3aebc5039ad7f234668560d49da11`, plus the documentation corrections committed with this record. Original base: `a8b0f805d1c4bbd14c52845b4861854b9ebc6e8f`. Current `main` inspected separately: `fa9abcabd36073b9706eca7056f68a9453e859c3`. This is technical review, not Rae's author review or legal clearance. + +- [x] Return PR #50 to draft, as requested; it was marked ready when this pass began. +- [x] Replace the temporary citation-interface claim with wording that remains accurate before and after any future merge. +- [x] Pin the Root Sequence and Being Human(e) license-audit links to inspected commits. The latter still identifies blob `463788c7f9f946e196e14630aa39d781e2cbae1f`; neither license text nor its interpretation changed. +- [x] Validate `CITATION.cff` against the upstream [CFF 1.2.0 JSON schema](https://github.com/citation-file-format/citation-file-format/blob/1.2.0/schema.json), including format checks; parse all three public governance YAML examples. +- [x] Check local links and Markdown fragments in all 13 changed Markdown files; no missing targets or headings. +- [x] Run `python3 cli/generate_idea_trail_index.py --check`: passed. +- [x] Run `python3 site/test_site.py`: all 11 tests passed. +- [x] Run `python3 cli/check_reader_docs.py` on the proposal and unchanged original base: both fail with the same 15 messages. No new reader-documentation error was introduced. +- [x] Recheck the official sources listed in `governance/references.md` for the cited distinctions. This does not establish rights ownership or resolve the recorded license conflict. +- [x] Inspect the diff: documentation/citation paths only; existing license, site, executable, workflow, and contribution terms remain unchanged. No private packet or employment records were added. This scoped inspection is not a complete secrets or rights audit. + +The 15 existing reader-check failures are one incorrect relative link in `research/papers/coherent-systems/notes/t003-added-value-protocol.md` and 14 notes without inbound Markdown navigation in that same directory. They remain a separate paper-documentation cleanup; a passing subset of checks must not be reported as an entirely green repository. + +### Compatibility record — 2026-10-22 + +Local `git merge-tree --write-tree` checks found no textual conflicts with the inspected `main` or any other open PR in this repository. They create local test trees only; no PR, branch, or policy was merged. The table lists paths changed by both proposals, excluding changes merely inherited from their different bases. + +| Other PR | Inspected head | Shared proposal paths | +| --- | --- | --- | +| [#40](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/pull/40) | `0cf7ed00cd24` | None | +| [#41](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/pull/41) | `c731d2f481c8` | None | +| [#42](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/pull/42) | `6329bfea8b9d` | `research/README.md` | +| [#43](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/pull/43) | `6097553039e9` | `README.md` | +| [#44](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/pull/44) | `00f14ffd8fb8` | `research/README.md` | +| [#45](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/pull/45) | `30748ee8db9b` | `research/README.md` | +| [#46](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/pull/46) | `58002e0b547b` | `README.md`, `PROJECT-CONTEXT.md`, `research/README.md`, `root_map.md` | + +The shared navigation retains the stewardship proposal's pending-review status and the other proposals' separate scope. Commons collaboration (#43) and professional presentation (#46) are complementary to the narrower publication/reuse guidance; neither is adopted here. The newer `main` research additions also combine without conflict. In an isolated copy of that combined tree, the Idea Trail check and all 11 site tests pass, and the reader check reports the same 15 baseline errors. Pairwise checks do not prove that every future merge order or combination will be conflict-free. + +The companion [organization PR #12](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/.github/pull/12) at `8571eb3de505c6ed8cf7c514d576905b8b70d5be` also combined without textual conflicts with organization #5 (`518f58a876f8`), #9 (`36527befd9f1`), and #10 (`aaaf425d6669`). Its pinned links are snapshots; refresh them when the source proposal changes, and switch to the maintained home only after adoption is approved. + +- [ ] Repair the 15 pre-existing reader-documentation failures in their own scoped change. +- [ ] Repeat compatibility and navigation checks if `main` or another relevant proposal changes before a merge decision. +- [ ] Obtain the adoption and licensing decisions above; technical validation supplies no approval by itself. + No monitoring automation, archival deposit, trademark registration, patent action, signature, agreement, or legal representation is created by this proposal. [Research stewardship](README.md) diff --git a/governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md b/governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md index 6865c8f9..b51466ed 100644 --- a/governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md +++ b/governance/licensing-audit-2026-10-22.md @@ -7,11 +7,11 @@ | Public repository | Observed evidence | Finding / next action | | --- | --- | --- | -| `root-sequence` | [`license`](../license), README, and contribution guidance at `a8b0f805d1c4bbd14c52845b4861854b9ebc6e8f` | CC0 declaration. Preserve existing grants; map any exceptions and distinguish code, prose, assets, and third-party work before changing future terms. | +| `root-sequence` | [`license`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/root-sequence/blob/a8b0f805d1c4bbd14c52845b4861854b9ebc6e8f/license), README, and contribution guidance at `a8b0f805d1c4bbd14c52845b4861854b9ebc6e8f` | CC0 declaration. Preserve existing grants; map any exceptions and distinguish code, prose, assets, and third-party work before changing future terms. | | `liberated-intelligence` | [`license`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberated-intelligence/blob/ad77e8b56178288ef12fa08e6e16c2c1393fa49a/license) and README | CC0 declaration. Citation requests must remain requests for this covered material. | | `universal-coherence-framework` | [`LICENSE`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/universal-coherence-framework/blob/e1c7b28803f58bea4a5b3a200063d5f579260b50/LICENSE), README, publication/model declarations | CC0, not MIT. Existing citation metadata should be preserved and checked at the item level. | | `liberation-mass` | [`LICENSE`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberation-mass/blob/4c791af6014a6ceedcb2e92cc4622f7a5076d485/LICENSE) versus [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberation-mass/blob/4c791af6014a6ceedcb2e92cc4622f7a5076d485/CONTRIBUTING.md) | **Conflict:** root license is CC0; contribution terms say CC BY-SA 4.0. Trace affected contributions and obtain a deliberate resolution. Do not assume all content can be re-dedicated. Existing [PR #7](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/liberation-mass/pull/7) also preserves this unresolved issue. | -| `beinghumane-guide` | [`LICENSE`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/beinghumane-guide/blob/main/LICENSE), blob `463788c7f9f946e196e14630aa39d781e2cbae1f` | MIT declaration. Confirm intended scope for site code versus prose, letters, media, and later contributions; do not silently reinterpret existing permissions. | +| `beinghumane-guide` | [`LICENSE`](https://github.com/Root-Sequence/beinghumane-guide/blob/acac553e158edf64814a08a1dec6fb14ccd94c1e/LICENSE), blob `463788c7f9f946e196e14630aa39d781e2cbae1f` | MIT declaration. Confirm intended scope for site code versus prose, letters, media, and later contributions; do not silently reinterpret existing permissions. | | `.github` | Root directory listing and Project Stewardship | No top-level LICENSE/COPYING file observed. This does not establish that no terms appear elsewhere; review content-specific declarations. Do not inherit another repository's CC0 by association. | | `wiki` | Root tree `f15a718d932c1571d85396b85250b93d8953c6a4` | No top-level LICENSE/COPYING file observed. Review entity source permissions and any text-level declarations separately. | | `root-sequence-discussions` | Root tree `e93ec409bf3f490dbce47ae242921a5ccb276b1e` | No top-level LICENSE/COPYING file observed. Files, issue comments, and discussion contributions need separate rights analysis; no blanket contributor consent inferred. |