Changes

Document	Version	Changes how
The licence	`0.1`	Slowly, and never to add an obligation. Section 10.2 forbids it.
The standard	`0.1`	Freely. It is non-binding, so being wrong costs nothing. The numbers in it are the part most likely to change.
Declaration format	`give-back/0.1`	Additively. New optional fields yes; removing or repurposing a field means a new major version.
Maintainer profile	`maintainer/0.1`	As above, and reluctantly. Every field is one somebody maintains unpaid, forever.

0.1 — 7 September 2026

First cut. Everything below is new, because there was nothing before it.

Licence drafted as an addendum on an undecided base rather than as a standalone licence, so that a reviewer reads one clause instead of a whole document.
The single obligation written as a list of fields (section 3.2), with an explicit statement that content is not prescribed and cannot be assessed (section 3.3).
Zero floor stated in the binding text rather than left to be inferred from silence, because the first question a reviewing lawyer asks is what the exposure is.
Conditional obligation (section 5) confined to the immediate licensor, to stop a lapse cascading down a dependency chain or unravelling around a cycle.
No registry submission written in as an express negative (section 4.3), not merely left unsaid.
Safety valve (section 6) with no requirement to quantify what was withheld.
Cure provision (section 7) lifted from GPL-3.0 section 8, deliberately, so a reviewer recognises the machinery.
Anti-tightening promise (section 10.2): no future version can impose an obligation beyond publication.
Standard published separately with four tiers and actual numbers, none of which appear in the binding text.
Both JSON formats published with worked examples and this site’s own declaration and profile.
Tool published as a browser-only demonstration that computes and displays and touches no money.
Registry published with entirely fictional data, to show the artefact without implying anything about anybody.

Recorded here rather than quietly fixed, because the list is more useful than a clean page:

“Relied upon” is used in the operative clause and never defined.
The condition-versus-covenant framing in section 0 is asserted, not argued, and may be wrong in a way that removes all effect from the licence.
The licence contains procedural numbers while the design principle says it should contain none. The distinction drawn between quantifying and bounding may not survive contact with a lawyer.
Both JSON formats will change. They have been used by nobody.
The name is a working name and section 12 of the design notes argues for splitting it in two. See the open question.