Article

Is it a licence or a sale of your records?

By TrustPast

Updated October 25, 2026

You built the files over twenty years, one job at a time. Now a buyer wants to pay for them, and the paperwork uses words like licence, acquiring and terms. Before you sign anything, you want to know one thing in plain words: are you renting these records out, or handing them over for good? This page settles that question. It covers what each kind of deal would mean in practice, what micro1’s own pages say, and the clauses to settle in the agreement.

We cover ownership itself on our page about whether you keep ownership of your records. Here we look at the deal’s wording. The same pile of job files can be licensed on terms that feel like a loan, or on terms that feel close to a sale. The difference lives in a few sentences of the contract.

The short answer

micro1 describes a licence. Its data partnerships page opens its process with one sentence: “We license data generated through your company’s everyday operations.” Its answer to who owns the data is shorter still: “Companies retain ownership of their underlying data.”

So on micro1’s published words, you keep the records and grant permission to use them. That is a licence, not a sale.

Two other things are also true. micro1 uses the word acquiring in two places. And its pages don’t publish the term of the licence, whether it is exclusive, or how far it reaches. Those are the details that decide how a licence feels in year five. They are set in your agreement, not on a web page.

Apply & License Your Data

What each deal would mean on an ordinary Tuesday

This section is our own explanation, not micro1’s, and it is not legal advice.

Cornell’s Legal Information Institute defines a licence as “permission granted by a qualified authority permitting a licensee to do something that would otherwise be prohibited.” On intellectual property, it adds that owners “maintain ownership over their IP while profiting from a licensee’s use of their IP.”

Picture a neighbouring contractor who asks to park two trucks in your yard. You can let them park there, for a fee, for a year, in the back corner only. That is a licence. You still own the yard. You can still park there yourself. When the year is up, the trucks go. Or you can sell them the yard. Then it is theirs. You need their permission to park in it.

Records work the same way, with one twist. A file can be copied. So with a licence, the buyer uses a copy under your permission, and the originals never leave your systems. With a sale, the buyer would own the records outright, and your own use of them could depend on what the sale left you.

In practice, the two deals differ in five places:

Your own use. Under a licence, you keep quoting from old jobs and training new estimators on them. Under a sale, that depends on what the contract reserves for you.
Other buyers. Under a non-exclusive licence, you may license the same records again. Under a sale or an exclusive grant, you may not.
The end. A licence can have an end date. A sale has none.
Passing it on. A licence says whether the buyer may share the records. An owner usually needs nobody’s permission.
Control. A licence can come with conditions, such as de-identification and deletion. A sale tends to end your say.

The words micro1 uses, sorted

It helps to lay out micro1’s wording side by side. We fetched each page on 25 October 2026.

Licence words. “We license data generated through your company’s everyday operations.” Under its contracting step: “We establish clear licensing terms, including a commitment not to resell or distribute your data until personal and identifying information has been anonymized.” On who receives it: “Your data is licensed exclusively to labs and enterprises based in the U.S. and allied countries”. Its referral page says qualified companies “are invited to connect with a Data Partnership Manager to discuss their data, licensing terms, and next steps.”

Ownership words. “Companies retain ownership of their underlying data.”

Acquiring words. The October announcement describes a 12-month commitment to “acquiring and licensing enterprise operational data through our Company Data Partnerships program.” On its referral page, the partnership for closed companies reads: “We are acquiring data from companies that are no longer operating.”

Control words. “Raw data is deleted according to an agreed schedule”. And: “Upon request or at the end of an engagement, data is deleted according to the agreed retention and deletion terms.”

Read together, the licence and ownership words are specific and repeated. The acquiring words come from an announcement and a programme heading. As our own reading, acquiring there describes getting access to records, which a licence does. But a word on a web page is not a clause. The grant clause in your agreement is the only text that settles it.

Why “exclusively” is not the same as an exclusive licence

One line on micro1’s pages is easy to misread. “Your data is licensed exclusively to labs and enterprises based in the U.S. and allied countries”.

That sentence limits who the licensees can be. It says nothing about whether you may license the same records to someone else. Those are two different questions. micro1’s pages, as fetched, don’t say whether its licence is exclusive or non-exclusive. Our glossary sets out the difference between an exclusive licence and a non-exclusive licence.

Exclusivity is the line to read twice. Under US copyright law, the definition of a “transfer of copyright ownership” includes an “exclusive license”. It excludes only “a nonexclusive license.” So, in the eyes of that one statute, an exclusive grant can behave like a transfer, even when the paper calls itself a licence.

How that applies to a company’s job files depends on what the files are and what the contract says. That is a question for counsel, not for us. As our own advice, ask micro1 directly whether the licence is exclusive. Then have your lawyer read the answer as it appears in the agreement.

Where a licence can start to feel like a sale

A licence is not one fixed thing. Some terms pull it toward a loan. Others pull it toward a sale. This list is our own, not micro1’s.

No end date. A licence with no end date has no point where permission stops. micro1 publishes retention terms for the data it holds, such as “Data is retained only for a limited period based on agreed retention policies”. It doesn’t publish how long the permission itself runs. Those can be two different dates. Our glossary entry on the licence term explains the idea.

Passing it on. micro1’s contracting line describes a commitment not to resell or distribute your data until personal and identifying information has been anonymized. Before any participation, it also confirms: “Personal and identifying information is removed or transformed before your data is shared with third parties.” As our own reading, that implies prepared records may be passed on after de-identification. That fits the line on licensing to labs and enterprises. It is worth knowing who those parties are and what they may do.

Prepared copies. micro1 says that after sharing, “certain datasets may undergo synthetic rewrites that preserve workflow structure while reducing direct ties to original records.” As our own advice, ask who owns that rewritten version. Your originals stay yours. A new version built from them may be treated differently.

What survives the end. Deletion ends the copy. It may not end everything built while the copy existed. Our page on whether licensed records can be deleted later goes through each copy.

None of these makes a licence a sale. Each one is simply a term you want to see written, not assumed.

What the payment does and doesn’t tell you

A single cheque can look like a sale price. It isn’t, necessarily.

micro1 says “We pay in full within 30 days of acceptance”. Its answer on timing adds that once the data is approved, the company submits an invoice and is paid within 30 days of invoicing. As our own reading, that is a one-time payment for a package of records, at least in the basic case. Its tiers also mention “ongoing participation across multiple teams and business functions”, so some arrangements may run longer.

A licence fee can be paid all at once, just like a price. As our own reading, software and photo licences are often bought that way. The way the money arrives doesn’t decide what you granted. The grant clause does.

What the terms can do is move the number. micro1 says compensation “is determined based on the characteristics and value of the data being contributed.” Its payout page says “Final payout is determined based on data sources, volume, quality, access terms, and due diligence.” As our own reading, exclusivity and the length of the licence may count among those access terms. micro1 doesn’t publish how it weighs them. Our page on what a company’s records are worth covers the factors micro1 does publish.

What is actually being licensed

A licence or a sale of what, exactly? The answer shapes how much any of this should worry you.

micro1 says, “We are looking for data that reflects how work is actually performed within an organization.” Its announcement says it uses de-identified company data. Its protection answer says “Personally identifiable information (PII) is removed when relevant”. The records are de-identified before use.

So what the buyer wants is not your customer list or your payments. As our own reading, a homeowner’s name and a deposit cheque teach nothing about how a trade is run. What is wanted is how the work was done.

Take a remodeller’s job file. The walk-through notes. The first estimate. The revised estimate after the client changed the tile. The change order when the subfloor turned out to be rotten, and the email where the price was agreed. That chain shows how an estimate became a job and how a change order was settled.

Or take a commercial service company’s work orders. A rooftop unit kept tripping. The tech checked the breaker, then the capacitor, then found a failing fan motor bearing. The note says why. That is a repair being diagnosed, step by step. Once the names are out, the steps stay.

Our cornerstone page on what data buyers want from a trade business walks through this split by trade. The point here is simpler. What you license is your company’s way of working, with the people taken out. That is the thing whose terms you are setting.

Words to look for in the draft agreement

This is our own advice. It is not legal advice, and it doesn’t replace your counsel. It is a reading list for the first draft, so you know which sentences to bring to your lawyer.

Words that belong in a licence. “License”, “grant”, “permission”, “licensee”. A named use. A named term. Scope limited to named systems and years.

Words that signal a transfer. “Assign”, “transfer”, “convey”, “sell”, “all right, title and interest”. If any of these sit next to your records, stop and ask why. A licence doesn’t need them.

Words that widen a licence. “Exclusive”, “perpetual”, “irrevocable”, “worldwide”, “sublicensable”, “transferable”. Each may be fine on its own. Together they can make a licence behave much like a sale. Each one is worth asking about, and possibly worth a different price.

US copyright law has one more useful rule. A transfer of copyright ownership, “other than by operation of law,” “is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.” As our own reading, ownership of that kind doesn’t slip away in a phone call. Outside transfers that happen by law, it moves in writing, signed by the owner or someone authorised to sign for it. So read every page you sign, including schedules and order forms.

What to settle before you sign

Here is the list we would want an owner to bring to the licensing conversation. It is our own advice, not micro1’s guidance. micro1’s referral page says that after the Data Partnership Manager call, the company “moves through contracting, data transfer, and data approval.” Settle these at contracting, before anything transfers.

The grant. One sentence saying the company grants a licence and keeps ownership. It should match micro1’s published line on ownership.
Exclusive or not. Whether you may license the same records to anyone else, and for how long.
The term. How long the permission lasts, separate from how long micro1 keeps the raw copy.
The use. What the records may be used for, in one plain sentence.
Passing on. Who micro1 may share prepared records with, and what those parties are bound by.
Prepared copies. Who owns de-identified and rewritten versions, and what happens to them at the end.
Your own use. A line confirming you may keep using your records exactly as before.
Change of owner. What happens to the licence if you sell the company, or if micro1’s business changes hands.
What you promise. Any statement that you hold the rights to everything you license. Check that against your client contracts first.

Item nine needs the most care. A licence asks you to grant rights you actually hold. Some job files contain material a client owns. Our page on whether licensing company records is legal lists whose rights to check. Counsel should read the client contracts and the grant clause together.

What this means for a company with 30 or more staff

micro1’s referral page lists “30+ employees” as a company requirement. Here is one company, as our own hypothetical. A mechanical contractor with 55 people and eighteen years of records in its service and project software.

What it keeps. Job files and work orders: service tickets, diagnosis notes, parts used, return visits. Project history: bids, submittals, schedules, daily logs, change orders and closeout files. The estimating spreadsheets behind every bid.

What it licenses. A de-identified copy of those records, scoped by system and year. The originals stay on its server. Its estimators keep pricing from them every week.

What it settles in writing. A grant that says licence and keeps ownership. A clear answer on exclusivity. A licence term with an end date, or a reason why not. A list of who may receive prepared records. A sentence on who owns the rewritten versions. The right to leave out jobs whose contracts forbid it.

What it asks before signing. Whether a shorter term or a non-exclusive grant changes the offer.

Our page on companies with 30 or more staff covers the lane in more detail. If you’d like a sense of scale before that conversation, our estimate gives a range in five questions. It is our range, not an offer.

If the company has already closed

micro1’s wording for closed companies is the one that leans hardest toward a purchase: “We are acquiring data from companies that are no longer operating.” That makes the grant clause even more important to read.

As our own advice, the same questions apply. Is it a licence or a transfer? Exclusive or not? For how long? Two more are added for a closed company. Who has the authority to sign for it now, since any signature has to come from someone entitled to give it? And who keeps the originals once the office is gone? Our page on closed companies covers the wider picture. Counsel should confirm who can sign before anything else.

What is never included

micro1 doesn’t publish a fixed exclusion list. It says it protects “sensitive information through data anonymization and secure handling.” Scope is agreed with each company.

As our own advice, keep these out unless micro1 agrees otherwise in writing: attorney-client privileged records, health information, payment-card and financial-account details, Social Security numbers, minors’ data, biometric data, and classified or export-controlled material. Leave out anything a client owns under its contract with you, and the customer list itself.

On a licence page, there is one more reason to keep scope tight. You can’t grant rights you don’t hold, and you can’t un-grant rights to records already sent. Our page on what is never included shows where those records tend to hide. Our How it’s safe page gives the short version of the protections.

Where we fit

We, TrustPast, explain how this works and give you a range with our estimate. You apply to micro1 yourself, through the button below. micro1 pays us a referral fee. You pay us nothing. We are not a party to your agreement, and we never hold your records. The licence and sale entry in our glossary keeps the one-line version for later.

TrustPast

Questions and answers

Does micro1 buy our records or license them?

Its data partnerships page describes a licence: “We license data generated through your company’s everyday operations.” Its answer to who owns the data is “Companies retain ownership of their underlying data.” Its announcement, and its referral page for closed companies, also use the word acquiring. As our own advice, read the grant clause of your agreement, because that clause decides which one you signed.

Is micro1’s licence exclusive?

micro1’s pages don’t say. The line “Your data is licensed exclusively to labs and enterprises based in the U.S. and allied countries” limits who the licensees can be. It doesn’t say whether you may license the same records to anyone else. As our own advice, ask, and have counsel read that clause.

Can micro1 pass our records on to others?

Its contracting step describes “a commitment not to resell or distribute your data until personal and identifying information has been anonymized.” It also says “Personal and identifying information is removed or transformed before your data is shared with third parties.” As our own reading, prepared records may be passed on after de-identification. Ask to whom, and on what terms.

How long does the licence last?

micro1 publishes no licence term. It says “Data is retained only for a limited period based on agreed retention policies” and “Raw data is deleted according to an agreed schedule.” As our own advice, ask for the length of the licence itself in writing, separately from the retention period.

Does the payment make it a sale?

No. As our own reading, a one-time payment can buy a licence as easily as a sale. micro1 says “We pay in full within 30 days of acceptance” and that compensation “is determined based on the characteristics and value of the data being contributed.” What you sold or licensed is decided by the agreement’s wording, not by how the money arrives.

Do we need a lawyer to tell the difference?

For the final read, yes. This page is our own explanation, not legal advice. As our own advice, bring the grant clause, the exclusivity line, the term and any clause on passing records on to your own counsel before you sign.