some comments from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/editoverall, I find some confusion as to whether this is a software license, or a license to use securities (there is ambiguity). I also think this document reads more like a manifesto of guidelines and rules rather than a conveyance of rights. Licenses are solely a conveyance of rights and should be written telling someone how they can use the software, not how the may not use it. If it isn't stated in the license, then they cannot do it. Perhaps have a "license" document and a separate "usage" document, like GPL does, to clarify.
© 2014 Protoshares and Angelshares Holders all rights reserved
Is that correct? I hold protoshares, so do I have a license to edit and distribute the document? The document should be (c) whomever wrote/paid for it, and can be all rights reserved or some other license
Protoshares and associated “"Product"s are collective property of PTS/AGS holders
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?
“Alternative DAC” funded by AGS must additionally allocate at least 10% of its equity to AngelShares holders at genesis.
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?
Clearly document their product and make it publicly available and convey with each “Product” unit a complete verbatim copy of this license and clearly state that they intend to honour the AngelShares Social Consensus.
unenforceable term: what does "clearly document" mean? the source code? document usage?
You may convey modified versions under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to ensure that, the Product does not contain malware and the data it still operates, and performs on is trained to stated purpose and is not used in or as part of a larger push towards violating civil liberties, privacy, security and/or criminal activity.
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?
Use the Product as part of a larger push towards violating civil liberties, privacy, security and/or getting yourself and PTS/AGS holders civil or criminal proceedings.
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.
Use the product in the commision of criminal acts
everything must be laid out in terms, not "not terms" - "You are granted a license to use and distribute products as limited by law."
Entity may not:-
this whole section is legally weird, I suggest rewriting it in terms of "terms", lay out what they can do and limitations of that, not as a list of what they can't do.
Use any “Product “ for commercial gain unless the “Product” and entity honour the Social Consensus.
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.
Attempt to subvert this license by use of coercion or illegal means to influence community members
this is doubly weird, a "not" term that says the license forbids you from doing something illegal?
EDIT: 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.