/ memos / 2026-09-16
£10, a commercial licence, and a name on the review
2026-09-16. The entry level goes to £10 and gains a commercial licence over the CC BY version anybody can download. And the two upper levels get a named reviewer, starting with the project lead, on a surface built for several.
The memo, word for word
Voice memo, transcribed — arrived twice, as a raw transcript and a cleaned one. The cleaned copy is below; the two differ only in punctuation and disfluency, and nothing in the substance moved. Nothing trimmed, reordered or paraphrased, and 1 term withheld and marked. The reading of it below is ours and is kept separate on purpose.
Something was withheld, and this is it. A term in the memo is barred from this site by a ruling — the contested autonomy term — so it is marked in place rather than cut quietly or the rule bent to admit it. The memo itself is intact in data/admin/memos.json. Why these words are not used here.
, which um, I think is okay to charge 10 quid, just it's a bit different because there were some comments about the five pounds. But one of the changes I want us to add to this, which I think will be quite interesting and is worth doing a little bit of research on just the easiest way of doing this is I want to offer a dual license on this. So I want to offer a commercial license for the vault. So fundamentally what they get from here is something they can download, but the version they download is Creative Commons by, which actually means they have to attribute. What we can do is we can give them a commercial license for them um, that is basically to the buyer. I don't think we need to name them. I think we can just say it. But it's basically a commercial license to the buyer to use that vault in whatever way they want, right? And we can do that because we own the copyright of everything that's in the vault. So I think that's quite a nice big change. Um, and again, we should be trying to explore that on that. Another change to make, and this is also come from the feedback that we had, which is um, was very good from the review, is Add me as the one that will run the 500 and 1500 quid review. So you should create a page for me. In fact, you should create a page for security professionals that will be doing the security review because I want to contact a lot of people I know to do this. Uh, so for now, you only have one, which is me, but we will have more soon. So. Again, when somebody purchases something, they should be choosing who they want to do the assessment. And for now, you can start with me. And there's already a, a couple of pages that have quite a lot of information about me. So you can use uh, materials from there. Uh, if not, let me know. But uh, the open source site already has, and uh, the Eskit site also has information about me. And you also have the latest about me on LinkedIn, which again, I can give you, right? Because I just published new information there. So that might be a good one for you to capture. But basically, you know, I, I have cybersecurity expertise, right? And I've been doing ⟦withheld — the contested autonomy term⟧ stuff and I'm, you know, a knowledge expert in a lot of these areas. Um, so, but fundamentally, this is, I'm the credibly, you know, I'm the one that is going to do the reviews of the 500 and the 1,000, uh, the 1,500 reviews uh, on that.
What we read in it
The price rise is not the change. The licence is
Two reviewers said £5 reads as a commodity — a human partner and an invented buyer who had never met them. A larger number for the same artefact answers neither. What changes is what is bought: the public download is CC BY and carries an attribution obligation, and the buyer gets a commercial licence to use that vault however they want. The free templates and the paid pack stop being the same thing at two prices, which is the actual answer to the commodity reading.
It is grantable because the copyright is ours
Stated in the memo and it is the load-bearing fact. Everything in the pack was written here, so a second licence over the same bytes is ours to give. A pack containing third-party material could not carry this offer, which makes it a constraint on what goes in a pack from now on.
The licensee is unnamed on purpose
“A commercial licence to the buyer… I don’t think we need to name them.” That is the part worth research rather than drafting: a grant to an unnamed holder has to read as a grant and not as a public re-licence of the same bytes, or it gives away what it is selling.
A named reviewer is the answer to a real hole
The two upper levels are somebody’s work and the store has never said whose. Asking for £1,500 for a security review from nobody in particular is a worse problem than any price. The memo also says what to build for: a list, not a person — “for now you only have one, which is me, but we will have more soon.”
And the buyer chooses
“When somebody purchases something, they should be choosing who they want to do the assessment.” With one reviewer that is a statement rather than a choice, and it should still be on the page, because what it says is that there is a name behind the work.
What this does not decide
Written down rather than guessed at. A memo is a direction; these are the places it stops, and every one of them is somebody’s call rather than a gap in the transcript.
The licence wording, and what it travels with
Does the grant attach to the file, or to the order reference? What happens on resale? Does it survive the buyer’s company changing name? None of this is drafted and none of it should be guessed at on a selling page.
The reviewer’s own page
Nothing goes on it that is not traceable to a published source. The memo names the open-source site, sgit.ai and a LinkedIn profile the project lead will supply. A biography this site invented would be the worst possible thing to stand next to a £1,500 price.
The work it produced
Live off the board. If a unit below moves, this moves with it.
Two reviewers independently said the entry level reads as a commodity at £5 — one human partner and one invented buyer who had never met them. The answer ruled on 16 September is not a larger number for the same thing: the level goes to £10 and gains a commercial licence, which is a different product rather than a dearer one.
The two upper levels are somebody's work and the store has never said whose. A buyer spending £1,500 on a security review is buying a person, and the site asks them to buy it from nobody in particular. First reviewer named 16 September; the surface is built for several, because there will be.