Skip to content

BDR-0001 – Generated Code Ownership

  • Type: Business Decision
  • Status: Accepted
  • Date: 2026-01-01
  • Owner: Dmitry
  • Related Areas: Business Model / Code Ownership / Factory / IP

This decision document defines ownership of code generated by the ConnectSoft AI Factory into customer Azure DevOps organizations. It is written for architects, legal, and anyone involved in customer contracts.

Decision

All code, pipelines, docs, and artifacts that the Factory generates into a customer's Azure DevOps organization are owned 100% by the customer. ConnectSoft retains IP in the Factory runtime, templates, and libraries used to generate that code, but the generated output itself belongs entirely to the customer.

Context

When the ConnectSoft AI Factory generates code into a customer's Azure DevOps organization, we need to clearly define who owns that code. This is critical for:

  • Enterprise trust and adoption
  • Legal clarity in contracts
  • Competitive differentiation vs "low-code, closed platforms"
  • Customer confidence that they're not locked in

The question: Should generated code be owned by ConnectSoft (to protect IP) or by the customer (to build trust)?

Decision

All code, pipelines, docs, and artifacts that the Factory generates into a customer's Azure DevOps organization are owned 100% by the customer. ConnectSoft retains IP in the Factory runtime, templates, and libraries used to generate that code, but the generated output itself belongs entirely to the customer.

Rationale

  • Enterprise Trust: Enterprise customers require full ownership of their code. This is non-negotiable for serious adoption.
  • Competitive Advantage: "No lock-in at the code level" is a huge selling point vs low-code platforms and closed systems.
  • Practical Reality: Once code is in their repo, we can't technically prevent copying anyway. Better to embrace it and build value elsewhere.
  • Customer Value: Customers can fork, modify, move to GitHub/Bitbucket, or stop using Factory and keep code forever. This builds long-term trust.
  • Business Model: Our value is in Factory automation, consistency, upgrades, support, and platforms — not in preventing code copying.

Consequences

Positive Consequences

  • Strong competitive differentiation: "No vendor lock-in"
  • Enterprise trust and adoption
  • Customer confidence to invest in Factory
  • Clear legal position for contracts
  • Aligns with industry best practices (GitHub Copilot, etc.)

Negative Consequences / Risks

  • Customers could theoretically copy generated microservices and create more without paying
  • Need to ensure business model doesn't rely on preventing copying
  • Must clearly communicate value beyond just code generation

Mitigation

  • Focus business model on Factory value (automation, consistency, upgrades, support)
  • Push complexity into libraries (ConnectSoft.Extensions.*) that customers depend on
  • Offer advanced templates and vertical accelerators as paid content
  • Provide platforms (Identity/Audit/Config/Bot) and squads as additional value
  • Legal contract prohibits using templates to build competing factory products

Follow-up Work Required

  • Draft formal contract language for MSA/EULA
  • Update website with "Code & IP" section
  • Create customer-facing explanation of ownership model
  • Legal review of policy before incorporating into contracts