I sold it as premium in July. The pricing was the smaller of the two things I got wrong.
In July, I told subscribers that the Product in Acquisitions OS plugin was live for premium subscribers. That is no longer true, and I am the one who changed it. As of version 0.5.0 on August 7, the plugin is MIT licensed. You can install it, fork it, modify it, redistribute it, and resell it, without asking me. Every plugin in the marketplace is now MIT, which ends an inconsistency where two were permissive and one was not.
If you subscribed on the strength of that July announcement, you should know the thing you subscribed for is now available to everyone.
What the July announcement got wrong
Two things, and the second is worse than the first.
The first is the obvious one. That announcement opened with “Product in Acquisitions OS is live for premium subscribers” and closed with a Go Premium call to action. Both were accurate on July 14, and both are wrong today. On August 12 I put a dated correction at the top of that announcement and left every word underneath it exactly as published. A publication that quietly rewrites its own back catalog is not worth reading, so the wrong version stays up with the correction stapled to the front of it.
The second is the one that actually bothers me. The plugin manifest declared a proprietary license for months, and there was no license file in the repository. The terms were asserted and never stated. Anyone who wanted to know what they were permitted to do with the plugin had nothing to read. That is not a licensing model. It is a claim with nothing behind it, and it sat there through four releases before I noticed.
Version 0.5.0 fixed both: a real LICENSE file, with terms anyone can read, that happen to be permissive.
By the numbers
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Releases shipped with a license claim and no license file | 4 |
| Date relicensed proprietary to MIT | August 7, 2026 |
| Plugins in the marketplace now MIT | 4 of 4 |
| Skills in Product in Acquisitions OS | 4 |
| Named deliverables across those skills | 21 |
| Reference templates | 23 |
| Repository | enalbenerraw/blanewarrene |
What MIT actually permits
Read the license rather than my summary of it, but the practical version:
- Install and use it commercially. On client work, inside your employer, on a deal you are being paid to integrate. No attribution required to me, though generated deliverables carry a footer you are free to strip.
- Modify it. The 23 reference templates are the source of truth for every deliverable. Rewrite them for your governance model, your stage band, your vocabulary.
- Redistribute it. Fork the repository, ship it inside your own toolkit, hand it to a portfolio company.
- Resell it. Yes, actually. You can charge for a derivative and keep the money.
The one thing MIT requires is that the copyright notice travels with the copies. That is the whole obligation.
Why give away the thing I had just sold
A framework that only works when I am in the room is not a framework. It is consulting with extra steps, and packaging it as a plugin does not change that.
The honest test of whether the 90-day integration model is right is whether someone I have never met can run it on a deal I will never see and get a usable decision rights document out of it. A paywall makes that test impossible to run at any useful sample size. I was optimizing for a few hundred dollars of conversion and giving up the only signal that tells me whether the work is any good.
There is a second reason, less noble. I am about to be accountable for this problem from inside a seat rather than writing about it from outside one. The gap between a framework that survives contact with a real integration and one that reads well in an essay is about to become very obvious to me. I would rather find that gap now, from people running it in the field, than discover it on my own deal.
What this changes for you
Depends which of these you are.
| You are | What to do |
|---|---|
| A paid subscriber who signed up for the plugin | You paid for something that is now free, and I am not going to talk you out of noticing that. The plugin is no longer the reason to stay. The writing is. If that is not the trade you want, unsubscribing is a reasonable call. |
| Mid-integration right now | Skip the license question entirely and install it. Start with week-0-readiness if you have not closed, roadmap-convergence if you have. |
| Evaluating whether to trust it | Read the LICENSE and the 23 templates in the repository before you install anything. That is now possible, which was the point. |
| Wanting to build on it | Fork it. If you ship something better, I would rather link to your version than defend mine. |
Install it
claude plugin marketplace add enalbenerraw/blanewarreneclaude plugin install product-in-acquisitions-os@blanewarrene-marketplace/reload-plugins
Then say “I just got named the product integration lead” or “facilitate a roadmap conflict diagnosis” and the right skill loads.
What I want back
Unchanged from July, and now it matters more. If you run this on a live integration, the useful reply is not that it was helpful. It is which deliverable you threw away and what you replaced it with. Leave it in the comments, email me, or open an issue against the repository.
The templates sharpen with field signal or they do not sharpen at all. That was always the argument for building it. It is now also the argument for giving it away.