A software company can explore licensing a defined set of documentation, subject to buyer interest and review of the rights it can grant. Separate product specifications, decision records, issue histories, and runbooks from source code and customer content.
- Inventory the documentation by purpose and responsible team.
- Identify version history and links between records.
- Define source code, customer contributions, and third-party material separately.
Name the documentation you mean.
“Our product documentation” could describe a public help center, internal design decisions, an API reference, or a collection of release notes. Those sets explain different things. Start by naming the category and the team that maintains it.
A hypothetical product change might connect a requirement, two design options, an engineering issue, and a release note. A useful inventory records those connections and identifies missing steps. It does not treat every document as interchangeable.
Choose the documentation scope you mean.
A help center, an internal decision archive, and API documentation answer different questions. Describe one scope before combining them. These are preparation distinctions, not statements that any category is available for licensing.
| Category | What it can describe | Check before proposing a scope |
|---|---|---|
| Public help content | The instructions currently available to users | Authorship, embedded examples, publication terms, and whether earlier versions remain. |
| Internal decision history | Requirements, alternatives, constraints, and reasons for a change | Links to outcomes, customer contributions, restricted code, and retained dates. |
| API and integration documentation | How an interface is described and maintained | Vendor material, copied schemas or examples, private endpoints, and version context. |
Can we explore documentation licensing without offering source code?
Yes. An initial inquiry can describe documentation while leaving source code outside the discussion. Define the categories you mean: specifications, design decisions, internal runbooks, or release history. A potential recipient must still assess whether that scope is relevant.
Check what the documents themselves contain. A design note may include code snippets, credentials, customer examples, or links to restricted material. Describing documentation as a separate category does not establish that every item is suitable to share.
Example: a change to scheduled exports.
This illustrative product team is changing how an export retries after a timeout. The example shows how several document categories can describe one piece of work. It is not a customer case or a dataset approved for licensing.
| Record | Illustrative example | Context to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | A retry should not deliver the same completed export twice | The problem and the constraint the team is addressing |
| Design decision | Compare a fixed retry delay with checking previous completion | Options considered and the reason for the chosen approach |
| Engineering issue | Track the completion check and its acceptance conditions | Links to the requirement, decision, and verification |
| Release note | Describe the changed retry behavior | Which change reached users and when |
| Internal runbook | Explain how support checks a delayed export | The operating procedure that follows from the change |
Separate five record types.
Use this framework to discuss the documentation with product, engineering, and support leads.
| Record type | What to identify |
|---|---|
| Product specification | Requirement, constraints, and relevant versions |
| Design decision | Options considered and recorded reasoning |
| Issue history | Problem, discussion, and linked changes |
| Release documentation | What changed and when it became available |
| Internal runbook | Procedure, owner role, and updates |
Turn the example into an inventory entry.
An initial entry might read: “Internal design decisions for scheduled exports; product and engineering teams; project tracker and company wiki; retained dates not yet checked; some decisions link to issues and release notes.” This is still an illustrative description, not a licensing recommendation.
Ask the teams to verify the dates, links, and restrictions. Record source code as a separate category even when an engineering issue links to it. A description of a link does not put everything behind that link into scope.
Check the links and versions.
GitHub Issues can track tasks, ideas, and bugs, and link to pull requests. For an engineering archive, identify which relationships remain accessible and whether the linked material falls within the proposed scope.
Do not infer a complete decision history from the current document. Ask whether earlier versions, linked discussions, and dates are retained. A polished final specification may omit alternatives that were considered earlier.
Source: GitHub: About issues
Treat an export as a separate preparation task.
Notion supports exports in formats including HTML and Markdown, with CSV for databases. The existence of those formats does not tell you which structure, links, or history a proposed evaluation needs.
If a buyer later requests a sample, agree the category, fields, date range, format, and exclusions first. Have the responsible team verify that the prepared material represents the defined scope. Keep the initial inventory at the level of descriptions.
Source: Notion: Export your content
Identify contributions and exclusions.
A product team’s workspace may include employee writing, contractor work, licensed diagrams, customer requests, and open-source references. Identify the sources instead of assuming every item has the same ownership position.
U.S. copyright law distinguishes the ownership of a copy from ownership of the copyright. The relevant agreements and rights need review before a license is granted.
Keep source code, credentials, customer submissions, and client-owned deliverables separate in the inventory. If a request includes them, make that scope explicit and involve the appropriate reviewers.
Source: U.S. Copyright Office: ownership of a copy and copyright
Does a public help center tell the same story as internal documentation?
A public help article usually describes how to use a product. Internal records may explain the constraints, alternatives, and decisions behind a change. Describe those sets separately, along with the versions and links that remain available.
If your team kept only the latest version, say so. You do not need to reconstruct missing history before asking an initial company-level question. A licensing opportunity and its value remain subject to an actual review and proposal.
Prepare the first internal review.
Ask each team for a category, approximate date range, responsible role, connected records, and known restrictions. Add whether the material is public or internal, current-only or versioned, and original or partly supplied by others.
Use the inventory template to assemble those answers. The company-data pricing guide explains which commercial questions to ask when an actual offer is available.
Read how Origin works with software companies, then send your company details if you want to discuss the records. The first conversation does not require source code, document uploads, or a prepared dataset.
Common questions
Does documentation licensing include source code?
Only if the agreed scope includes it and the relevant rights can be granted. Define documentation and source code as separate categories during the review.
Can public documentation still need a rights review?
Yes. Public availability does not establish that a recipient has permission for every proposed use. Review authorship, license terms, and the specific request.
Do we need to export our wiki or documentation before contacting Origin?
No. Begin with company details, documentation categories, approximate retained history, and known restrictions. Keep the underlying documents and system connections inside the company during the initial inquiry.
Can we start if the documentation has no version history?
You can describe the current material and state that earlier versions are unavailable or unverified. Do not present it as a complete decision history. A recipient would need to assess the actual scope for its proposed use.