Think inside your AI world.
A licence change, against a tool you build on
A relicense is a small public commit with a large blast radius: a permissive licence swapped for a source-available one, dated and visible to anyone who reads the LICENSE file. What you actually need is the one that lands on a tool you built a product on — because that commit decides whether your commercial use still stands, and only you know that you depend on it under the old terms.
Read a project’s public LICENSE history through Unl and the change arrives measured against the criterion you ratified — so instead of a diff you would never think to watch, you get the single relicense that lands on a tool you built on commercially, with the reason it bears on your terms. The one, not the thousand.
What a project’s public LICENSE history publishes
A project’s LICENSE history is a genuine public record, and licence changes are constant across the ecosystem:
- Relicenses land as ordinary commits, dated and public, with no fanfare
- Permissive to source-available, dual-licensing, added commercial clauses — every flavour of change
- Across thousands of projects, almost none of which you ship a product on
- No idea which change touches a tool you depend on commercially — that context is not in the commit
The line the feed can't hold
Say you built a product on an open-source tool under its permissive terms, and ratified the line that makes a licence change worth your attention: if a tool I build a commercial product on relicenses to something that restricts my use, I need to know while I still have room to respond; a relicense on anything I don’t ship on is not my problem. That “build a commercial product on” is a decision you made; it is not a field the commit models.
The reason the line is yours is the whole point. A watcher can diff every LICENSE file; it cannot know which tools you shipped a product on, or that a permissive-to-source-available change on one of them threatens your commercial standing while the same change on a tool you never adopted is simply news.
The frame judges the data it is given; it does not verify the source’s accuracy.
The one that crosses
So when a tool you build on relicenses away from the terms you relied on, it crosses — and every other licence change that month does not. Through Unl the answer arrives as a verdict: a tool you built a commercial product on has relicensed to more restrictive terms, so this one bears directly on whether your use still stands and is worth acting on now; the rest were not yours to weigh. Same public commit; a decision instead of a diff.
You didn't ask — it was already there
You did not ask for it. The criterion was already ratified, so the next time you open Claude on that product the crossing is already in the window — read against your commercial-dependence line, with the reason it cleared it — rather than waiting for you to remember to re-read a LICENSE file. You author the line once; the read applies it every time the world moves.
The answer comes back measured against what you already decided, and why.
The lane is live and open to this tool today: one box, paste anything. If it speaks MCP, Unl can reach it. Readings arrive unprompted, the data beside the criterion; Unl is a courier, not a warehouse, and keeps only your keys and the frame.
Read further
Questions people ask
How is this different from watching a repo or subscribing to a licence-change feed?
Watching a repo shows you every commit it makes, and a feed lists every relicense there is. This fires on YOUR rule: a licence change, but only on a tool you actually build a product on, with the reasoning attached. The feed shows you the thousand; the measured read shows you the one that touches your commercial standing, and why.
Do I get pinged the moment a project relicenses?
The capability is that the crossing arrives measured against your criterion the next time you are working — it is already in the window, read against your line, rather than a commit history you remember to scan. A scheduled push is a separate delivery; what the read guarantees is that when the crossing surfaces, it surfaces as a verdict about your use, not as one more changelog line.
Does Unl change anything in the project or its licence?
Unl reads through a project’s public LICENSE history, and can write back on your explicit gesture — it never acts as a side effect of a read. The LICENSE history is a public GET; your criterion — that you depend on the tool commercially — lives in Unl; the read joins them and returns a verdict, altering neither.
What if the new licence only binds versions after the one I use?
Then you have time, and knowing that is most of the value — a relicence that binds only future versions turns an emergency into a planned decision about whether you ever upgrade again. Your line was about a tool you build a commercial product on moving to terms that restrict your use, and a change that leaves your current terms intact still bears on it, because it prices every future upgrade. The verdict carries which versions the new terms attach to, so you are reading your actual exposure rather than a headline about a relicence.
What this is
Think inside your AI world — you stay in command
Save the thoughts, decisions and targets worth keeping, each with its reasoning, carried into every AI session the moment they matter. A new unit of exchange between you and your AI: the Settled Why with standing that travels. Unprompted.
Your whole AI world. What you decided at the epicentre. It plugs into Claude, Claude Code, ChatGPT and Cursor as an MCP connector — quick to connect, in a couple of steps.
MCP native·Human settled·Model agnostic·Your data
Frontier Frame
Connect Unl to watch the world against what you decided.
A crossing arrives when the world bears on your position.
The full product, open. Free at launch.