What licence scope should an environment builder clarify?

Start with the intended deployment. A generated complaint package used inside a private evaluation harness has a different distribution pattern from an environment delivered to external users. Agent-visible records may also appear in logs, demonstrations, exported traces or downstream training material.

A buyer can ask MirrorFirm to clarify the applicable licence for each intended use. Questions can cover internal training, evaluation, schema adaptation, creation of derived environments and redistribution of embedded generated content. Public website or MCP access should not be treated as establishing every downstream usage right.

Separate access from permission. Being able to retrieve an asset does not answer whether it can be republished, sublicensed or incorporated into a customer-facing simulator. Likewise, permission to use a dataset does not automatically define rights over every accompanying policy or software component.

A useful first step is a short usage description showing who receives the assets, what transformations occur and which outputs leave the buyer's systems. That gives the scope discussion concrete boundaries without assuming prices, contract provisions or rights that have not been agreed.