docs: add indexed paralegal research library

AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Repository agent instructions
+
+This repository contains draft license text and preliminary legal research. It
+does not provide legal advice, and an agent's research is not an adoption or
+licensing decision.
+
+For any request involving license interpretation, enforcement, infringement,
+remedies, litigation, statutes, cases, or legal strategy:
+
+1. Read `paralegal-research/AGENTS.md` completely.
+2. Check `paralegal-research/INDEX.md` before searching the web or opening a
+   new GitHub issue.
+3. Treat a matter memo in that index as the canonical research record. GitHub
+   issues are discussion and action mirrors, not the source of truth.
+4. Keep research separate from changes to `LICENSE`. Do not turn a researched
+   scenario into license text unless the user expressly asks for drafting.
+5. Preserve the attorney-review gate in `LEGAL-REVIEW.md`.
+
+For non-legal work, follow the repository's existing documentation and tests.

README.md

@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ the copyright grant, not contributors' patent grants.
 - `NOTICE-TEMPLATE-MIT-LEGACY.txt` — additive header variant for files
   with surviving MIT-era third-party authorship.
 - `LEGAL-REVIEW.md` — review gate, applied decisions, attorney checklist.
+- `paralegal-research/` — indexed, preliminary legal research, reusable
+  authority notes, research workflow, and future-question backlog.
 - `header-policy.toml` and `header-policy.schema.json` — policy format and
   an integration example.
 - `tools/license_headers.py` — one-command inventory, check, update, and

paralegal-research/AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Agent workflow for legal research
+
+These instructions apply throughout `paralegal-research/`. Read them before
+doing legal research for this repository.
+
+## 1. Route the question before researching
+
+Normalize the request into five fields:
+
+- **actor** — licensor, copyright owner, contributor, distributor, service
+  operator, customer, or other claimant/defendant;
+- **conduct or trigger** — distribution, remote network use, missed source
+  publication, notice omission, post-termination conduct, or another event;
+- **jurisdiction** — country, court system, and state law when relevant;
+- **issue or remedy** — liability, standing, injunction, damages, cure,
+  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:
+
+```console
+rg -n -i "<key phrase>|<synonym>|<case>|<statute>" paralegal-research LICENSE LEGAL-REVIEW.md README.md
+```
+
+Search synonyms as well as the user's wording. For example, search `source
+disclosure`, `corresponding source`, `specific performance`, `injunction`, and
+`cure` for a request framed as “make the infringer publish.”
+
+## 2. Decide whether the question is already answered
+
+Read the candidate memo's scope, short answer, assumptions, open questions,
+and `last_verified` date. Classify the request as follows:
+
+- `answered` — the memo covers the same material actor, conduct, jurisdiction,
+  remedy, and license version; its authorities remain current; and no open
+  point would materially change the answer.
+- `partial` — the memo is analogous, but a different jurisdiction, claimant,
+  license clause, procedural posture, or unresolved fact matters.
+- `unresearched` — no memo addresses the material question.
+- `superseded` — a newer memo expressly replaces the old one.
+
+Do not create a duplicate memo merely because the phrasing differs. Update the
+existing memo when the legal question is materially the same. Create and
+cross-link a child or related matter when the difference could change the
+answer. A memo may become stale without changing its `research_status`; update
+`last_verified` only after checking all time-sensitive authorities.
+
+Allowed frontmatter values are:
+
+- `research_status`: `unresearched`, `in-progress`, `partial`, `answered`, or
+  `superseded`.
+- `legal_review`: `not-requested`, `pending`, `approved`, or
+  `changes-required`.
+
+## 3. Research in authority order
+
+Prefer sources in this order:
+
+1. Operative repository text and version history.
+2. Statutes, regulations, court opinions, orders, and dockets.
+3. Official license text and materials from the license steward.
+4. Reputable secondary legal analysis for context and leads.
+5. Community posts or anonymous material only as leads to stronger sources.
+
+For technical legal questions, use primary authority for the final proposition
+whenever available. Record the court, jurisdiction, date, procedural posture,
+precedential weight, direct URL, and verification date.
+
+Never collapse these categories:
+
+- a court's holding;
+- a party's allegation or requested relief;
+- a settlement term;
+- a default judgment;
+- dicta or commentary;
+- an inference from multiple sources.
+
+If a complaint asks for source disclosure, that does not prove a judge ordered
+it. If parties settle on publication, that does not establish a generally
+available judicial remedy. State those limits in the memo and authority card.
+
+## 4. File the result
+
+Use `templates/MATTER.md` for a new question and assign the next `PR-####` ID.
+Use `templates/AUTHORITY.md` and the next `AUTH-####` ID when a source is
+nuanced, likely to be reused, or important to the answer. A routine source can
+remain in a matter's source table.
+
+File matters by their primary issue, not by the name of the person asking:
+
+- `matters/remedies/`
+- create another lowercase topic folder only when needed, such as `standing/`,
+  `scope/`, `registration/`, or `procedure/`.
+
+File reusable authority cards by source type:
+
+- `authorities/cases/`
+- `authorities/statutes/`
+- `authorities/licenses/`
+
+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;
+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.
+
+## 5. GitHub and external actions
+
+Repository memos are canonical. If the user asks for an issue, create one with
+a concise summary, scope limits, open questions, and a link to the memo once
+the memo is available. Add the issue URL to the memo. Do not open issues,
+contact counsel, publish findings, or change external systems without user
+authorization.
+
+## 6. Quality gate
+
+Before declaring a matter answered, verify:
+
+- the short answer responds to the normalized question;
+- every important proposition has a direct, accessible source;
+- requested relief is not described as awarded relief;
+- current cases and statutes were checked recently;
+- holdings are separated from settlements and commentary;
+- 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
+  an identified attorney review.

paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# 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.
+
+| Priority | Scenario | Why it could change a decision | 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.

paralegal-research/INDEX.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Research index
+
+Search this registry before opening a new matter. The matter memo is the
+canonical answer; authority cards are reusable source analyses.
+
+## Matters
+
+| ID | Question | Jurisdiction | Research | Legal review | Verified | Canonical memo |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| PR-0001 | What can a court order for AGPL-style source noncompliance, and can the result be source disclosure or a commercial license? | U.S. federal; California contract issues | answered | pending | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) |
+
+## Reusable authorities
+
+| ID | Authority | Type | Key use | Verified | Card |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| AUTH-0001 | *Jacobsen v. Katzer* | case | Open-source conditions and copyright enforcement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) |
+| AUTH-0002 | *MDY Industries v. Blizzard* | case | Ninth Circuit condition-versus-covenant framework | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) |
+| AUTH-0003 | *Artifex Software v. Hancom* | case | GPL dual-license pleading and commercial-license damages theory | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) |
+| AUTH-0004 | BusyBox / Westinghouse | case | Default-judgment injunction for GPL noncompliance | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) |
+| AUTH-0005 | *Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio* | case | Third-party-beneficiary specific-performance theory | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) |
+| AUTH-0006 | 17 U.S.C. §§ 502–505, 412 | statutes | Injunction, impoundment, monetary relief, fees, registration timing | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) |
+| AUTH-0007 | GNU AGPL version 3 | license | Network source offer, termination, cure, and reinstatement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md) |
+| AUTH-0008 | BusyBox / Monsoon settlement | settlement | Negotiated publication, notice, controls, payment, and reinstatement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md) |
+
+## Status key
+
+- Research: `unresearched`, `in-progress`, `partial`, `answered`, or
+  `superseded`.
+- Legal review: `not-requested`, `pending`, `approved`, or
+  `changes-required`.
+
+The verification date reports when time-sensitive sources were last checked;
+it is not an attorney approval date.

paralegal-research/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Paralegal research library
+
+This directory is the durable home for preliminary legal research supporting
+the FastLED licensing project. It is designed so that a future human or agent
+can answer three questions quickly:
+
+1. Has this question already been researched?
+2. What proposition does the existing authority actually support?
+3. Where should a new finding be recorded so it can be reused?
+
+The material here is research work product for attorney review. It is not legal
+advice, does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and does not itself
+change the project's license or policy. Do not label material privileged or
+confidential unless counsel has directed that treatment.
+
+## Directory map
+
+- `INDEX.md` — canonical registry of matters and reusable authorities.
+- `BACKLOG.md` — scoped future scenarios; an entry is not authorization to
+  begin research.
+- `matters/` — one canonical memo per concrete legal question.
+- `authorities/` — reusable source cards for cases, statutes, and licenses.
+- `templates/` — required structure for new matter memos and authority cards.
+- `AGENTS.md` — mandatory research and filing workflow for agents.
+
+## Mental model
+
+A **matter memo** answers a question. An **authority card** records what a
+source can and cannot establish. The index routes readers to both. A GitHub
+issue may collect discussion, review, or follow-up work, but it should point
+back to the canonical memo rather than becoming the only copy of the research.
+
+Research status and legal-review status are deliberately separate. A memo can
+be complete enough to answer the research question while still awaiting an
+attorney's review.

paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0003
+title: Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc.
+authority_type: case
+jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California
+date: 2017-04-25
+authority_status: settled
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0003: *Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc.*
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc.*, No. 3:16-cv-06982 (N.D. Cal.).
+- [Court order via GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06982/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06982-2.pdf)
+- [Free Software Foundation settlement update](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hancom-gnu-gpl-compliance-case-1)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Federal trial-court pretrial ruling in a dispute involving GPL-licensed
+Ghostscript and Artifex's alternative commercial license. The case later
+settled. It is persuasive, not binding precedent, and supplies no final merits
+judgment compelling source publication.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- A dual-licensing plaintiff can plausibly pursue contract and copyright
+  theories based on GPL use and alleged noncompliance.
+- The value of an available commercial license may be argued as a measure of
+  damages if supported by the facts and damages law.
+- Use of GPL software does not itself mean the user accepted the separate
+  commercial license.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- That a court may force the defendant to buy, or the owner to sell, a
+  commercial license.
+- That the commercial list price automatically equals recoverable damages.
+- That source disclosure was awarded after a merits trial.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+Artifex offered Ghostscript under the GPL or a paid commercial license and
+alleged that Hancom used and distributed it without satisfying the GPL. The
+court allowed material theories to proceed and rejected the premise that
+Artifex could simply impose a commercial agreement Hancom had not accepted.
+The dispute ended by settlement before a final adjudication of the requested
+source remedy.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Recheck trigger: unsealed settlement material, later history, or controlling
+  authority on commercial-license benchmarks.

paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0008
+title: BusyBox enforcement settlement with Monsoon Multimedia
+authority_type: settlement
+jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York
+date: 2007-10-30
+authority_status: settled
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0008: BusyBox enforcement settlement with Monsoon Multimedia
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.*, No. 07-cv-8205 (S.D.N.Y.).
+- [Software Freedom Law Center settlement announcement](https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/oct/30/busybox-monsoon-settlement/)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Private settlement announced after a GPL enforcement complaint. Settlement
+terms illustrate negotiated compliance tools but are not findings, holdings,
+or proof that a court would order identical relief after litigation.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- Parties can settle a GPL dispute through source publication, notice to past
+  recipients, compliance controls, payment, and conditional reinstatement of
+  distribution rights.
+- Reinstatement can be negotiated after concrete compliance steps rather than
+  treated as automatic forgiveness of past conduct.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- That a court adjudicated liability or ordered those terms.
+- That public source disclosure is mandatory relief in every GPL or AGPL case.
+- That the same terms would be appropriate for network-only use.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+The announced resolution required Monsoon to publish BusyBox source, notify
+prior recipients, appoint an open-source compliance officer, and pay an
+undisclosed amount. The plaintiffs agreed to reinstate distribution rights after
+compliance. Those are settlement choices made by the parties.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Contrasting authority: [BusyBox / Westinghouse](busybox-westinghouse.md),
+  where relief was entered through default judgment.
+- Recheck trigger: use of any term beyond the public announcement or discovery
+  of the operative settlement text.