Perhaps have a "license" document and a separate "usage" document, like GPL does, to clarify.ok, that would be a better idea.
is that true? If I send someone a protoshare, that protoshare is protected under the terms of this license? Can you put a license on what you can use protoshares for? Shouldn't all products (I'm assuming you mean software products) be licensed under this license, but the code is property of whomever wrote/paid for it? If this license is violated, who is the injured party that has legal standing to bring suit? I own protoshares, can I prevent you from prosecuting a violation of this license?This is community enforced, read
Protoshares and associated "Product"s are collective property of PTS/AGS holders and are provided under the terms of this COPYFARLEFT PUBLIC LICENSE.
what defines a DAC funded by AGS? If I don't actually raise AGS to fund my project, but instead use a derived work that was funded by AGS, does that count? A DAC funded by AGS is one whose development and other such costs is paid for from that fund. As for derived works, Please read the Consensus
unenforceable term: what does "clearly document" mean? the source code? document usage? I'll change the wording but it is integral to telling the difference between the original work and a derivative. To clearly document a poduct means to describe it and it's functions, and in this case state what changes have been made that make this product different from the original.
nearly unenforceable: What is malware? if my code checks in to a master server to check for updates, is that malware? some would consider it. Who defines civil liberties, privacy, etc.? Since those change with jurisdiction, is this a regional-dependent license? malware is malicious software. as for the dependency on jurisdiction, you cant expect the license to include a guide to each countries laws. it's up to the aspiring DAC creators to observe those.
while good intentions, is this an enforceable statement? A license document really doesn't usually lay out "you may not" terms since they are not really prosecutable or enforceable, you just have to say a licensee was not following the terms of the license - no need to say they were following the terms of the "you may not" terms of the license. And if someone gets PTS/AGS holders in trouble, this won't protect you at all.
read
Indemnify the collective and Original Developers (where applicable) and that the copy complies with this license document.The situation is unique and so are the requirements meant to be satisfied by the document. Most likely as the industry progresses you may actually see a new class of license being adopted to protect peoples investments. Because if i was to follow your general thoughts based on your comments, i'd create a license that does nothing to protect the investors of PTS and AGS actually basically a free for all license. This is a business and deserves the right to protect itself.
everything must be laid out in terms, not "not terms" - "You are granted a license to use and distribute products as limited by law."
thanks for the tip.
make this a term, combine with: You may modify, distribute, and use the “Product” in binary and source forms for non-commercial use. You may modify, distribute, and use the “Product” in binary and source forms for commercial use if you honour the Social Consensus.
lol, sure you don't want editing rights?
Also, be careful with this software license. It is considered "non-free" and is almost definitely incompatible with GPL. Linking with any GPL libraries would be a license violation of GPL.
This is an attempt at copyfarleft, not at all with GPL. I perused the code and everything is under the MIT license. There are no conflicts.
Show Posts
