Legal framework
Pragmatically speaking, within the traditional institutional, state-based framework, the legal framework of an OVN is an assembly of legal entities that form the 'legal interface' between an the open network and traditional institutions, i.e. that allow the network to operate within the current economy.
The legal framework can also be understood as the assemble of the legal theory and laws on which are based the operations of an OVN.
See also Legal structure
Main ideas
Open networks are not yet recognized as legitimate organizations by modern institutions. They are not illegal entities, they simply don't exist on government forms, there is no legal language written specifically for them. This will most probably change in the future - see more on the 4th Sector initiative. In some countries though, the legal status of open networks is covered by the law on associations. This is the case of Canada and the rest of the Common Wealth countries. In that sense, we can say for example that Sensorica exists legally in Canada as a non-registered association.
The OVN is an open network with its own specific Governance, IT infrastructure and methodologies of work - see more on Organizational structure. The Bitcoin network is an OVN. No one owns the Bitcoin network, its form of property is nondominium. No one in particular controls the Bitcoin network, which is a necessary condition of existence for the network, as trust in it largely depends on the impossibility for a minority to control the network. The network is not a transferable entity, it cannot be bought or sold, since it cannot be owned or controlled. The network is open (permissionless), i.e. anyone can join it at will, without any restriction. Despite all these strange characteristics, it is capable of providing a stable and highly secure service to society, at global scale.
Legal structures are built at the periphery of the network to create bridges with the current system. Examples are : Exchange firm (takes on legal liability of products commercialized by the OVN and acts as and interface with the market), Custodian (a trust that absorbs legal liability for use, usually a non-for-profit that holds and administers assets like lab space, equipment, tools, consumable materials, grants and funds, the brand, etc.)...
Often, an OVN must strongly interface with a traditional institution. For example, the Sensorica OVN collaborates with an academic lab on some type of instrument device, sharing a research grant. How can an OVN enter into agreement with the University? How can a governmental institution grant funding to an OVN?
Apart from the legal issues mentioned above, OVNs and traditional institutions are very different in nature and interfacing them requires harmonizing internal procedures (management vs stewarding, planning vs synergistic coordination), risk management, etc.
Institutions are machine-like organizations built from blueprints, while OVNs are more organic, emergent. Institutions function according to written protocols, while OVN self-organize dynamically, in context. Institutions are finite in capacity (resource, people) while OVNs are elastic in capacity (everything is crowdsourced). Institutions manage risks mostly through exclusion (barriers to entry, defence), cohesive measures (contracts) and control (management), while OVNs do it through redundancy, coupled to positive incentives and motivation. These differences must be bridged by the interface.
Agreement templates
Since its inception in February 2011 Sensorica has sought to bridge with the traditional world. See the history of Sensorica's interfaces with traditional and the evolution of these interfaces. Sensorica's Goverannce page contains links to templates of agreements that have been successfully used in these relations.