Leapfrog 2030 architecture
editorial(architecture): fix leapfrog-2030-architecture's license claim, de-narrate (Track-B) — confirmed against the ratified LICENSE-MATRIX (same finding already established on governance/contributor-model.md and governance/legal-and-ip-structure.md this initiative): os-console/os-totebox ship AGPL-3.0-or-later, os-workplace ships FSL-1.1-ALv2, not a single Apache 2.0 licence; dropped the narrated correction framing per register-documentation.yaml, stated the real open-core split directly; ES pair had the same stale unhedged Apache 2.0 claim, fixed to match; rest of article already well-hedged with proper planned/intended forward-looking language, no further changes needed
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Each shift is a single architectural decision with downstream consequences. Each ## What the thesis is not The thesis is not anti-cloud. PointSav uses commercial cloud providers extensively. It is not anti-AI. PointSav embeds language models throughout the architecture. It is not a rejection of open source. PointSav's core operating systems are intended for release under Apache 2.0. (Correction, 2026-08-02, verified against canonical `origin/main`: this is wrong — the real, ratified `LICENSE-MATRIX.md` puts `os-console`/`os-totebox` under AGPL-3.0-or-later and `os-workplace` under FSL-1.1-ALv2; no `os-*` product is Apache 2.0. Same finding on the sibling article `pointsav-overview.md`. Flagged, not resolved.) The thesis is not anti-cloud. PointSav uses commercial cloud providers extensively. It is not anti-AI. PointSav embeds language models throughout the architecture. It is not a rejection of open source. PointSav's core operating systems ship open — `os-console` and `os-totebox` under AGPL-3.0-or-later, `os-workplace` under FSL-1.1-ALv2 — not a single permissive licence, but a real, ratified open-core split. The thesis is structural: the asset the customer owns is the running instance, not a subscription seat.