BitShares Forum

Other => Graveyard => Marketplace => Topic started by: bytemaster on December 28, 2013, 07:34:33 am

Title: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]
Post by: bytemaster on December 28, 2013, 07:34:33 am
I suggest an approach similar to the GPL. We should come up with our own software license which specifically indicates our terms and percentages in the "Social Contract/Consensus". This would make it so that if we write code it cannot be used or cloned in a way which violates the "Social Contract/Consensus" without also violating the law and testing a legal precedent.

The reason to turn the Social Contract into a software license is to create a situation where the programmers themselves agree to only write or contribute to development on projects which accept that particular license. It could allow us to extend the Social Contract/Consensus outside of the bounds of Protoshares and Invictus Innovations and into a much broader space similar to impact of the GPL.

Can Invictus Innovations consult with their legal team to come up with some language which can help us to establish a software license which would restrict the use of our code as only being used in projects which meet the terms of the minimum of the Social Contract/Consensus?

I am personally of the opinion that intellectual property is invalid due to its violation of physical property rights and free speech.  This includes copyright and patents as these are government privileges.

That said I am a firm believer in subjecting people to their own laws.  Therefore, I would like to see a such a license that only applies to those who assert that copyright and patents should be enforced against those who do not consent to be governed by copyright or patent law.

I believe that such a license would make people more comfortable with the AngelShares Social Consensus and thus increase the rate of contribution and development due to reduced risk.   

To win this bounty you must post a complete license along with a legal opinion on why it would be the most effective means at achieving the following goals:

1) Preventing copycats that believe in intelectual property from using our code to launch derivative DACs that fail to honor our social consensus.
2) Not preventing businesses from using any DAC that honors SCSL, even if they support IP... we don't want to restrict the use of DACs that follow the SCSL in any way shape or form.
3) Preventing businesses that believe in intelectual property from using any DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL
4) Define the AngelShares social consensus in as clear and unambiguous terms as possible.
5) Frees the developers of DACs from any liability resulting from the use of the code or failures in the code.

Invictus will select a license to release our software under and will pay this bounty to the writer(s) of the license.   We expect the process of writing the license to be cooperative and iterative.  All drafts must be made public and to win the bounty the winning SCSL license must have consent from all contributors as judged by Invictus. 

Based upon latest bounty rules I am marking this bounty active and will pay it out when I opt to use a SCSL license that I believe best achieves the goals.   I reserve the right to not pick such a license until one of sufficient quality is produced and vetted by multiple qualified individuals.  In other words I am looking for an off-the-shelf license that I may pay to use.  This bounty does not constitute an implied contract, but a expression of market demand for such a product to exist. 

For this bounty, there is a 10 PTS referral reward for anyone who refers a qualified lawyer that wins the bounty.  The 10PTS will be divided among all referrals proportional to the contribution of the referred lawyer.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: bytemaster on December 28, 2013, 08:11:24 am
I just referred Andy Beal to this bounty, so he is off the table for the referral bounty.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: yvg1900 on December 28, 2013, 10:47:17 am
As it comes to software license, it is still not clear what positioning this group has to independent software developers that do not release source code due to various reasons.

yvg1900
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: barwizi on December 28, 2013, 04:00:46 pm
I suggest an approach similar to the GPL. We should come up with our own software license which specifically indicates our terms and percentages in the "Social Contract/Consensus". This would make it so that if we write code it cannot be used or cloned in a way which violates the "Social Contract/Consensus" without also violating the law and testing a legal precedent.

The reason to turn the Social Contract into a software license is to create a situation where the programmers themselves agree to only write or contribute to development on projects which accept that particular license. It could allow us to extend the Social Contract/Consensus outside of the bounds of Protoshares and Invictus Innovations and into a much broader space similar to impact of the GPL.

Can Invictus Innovations consult with their legal team to come up with some language which can help us to establish a software license which would restrict the use of our code as only being used in projects which meet the terms of the minimum of the Social Contract/Consensus?

I am personally of the opinion that intellectual property is invalid due to its violation of physical property rights and free speech.  This includes copyright and patents as these are government privileges.

That said I am a firm believer in subjecting people to their own laws.  Therefore, I would like to see a such a license that only applies to those who assert that copyright and patents should be enforced against those who do not consent to be governed by copyright or patent law.

I believe that such a license would make people more comfortable with the AngelShares Social Consensus and thus increase the rate of contribution and development due to reduced risk.   

To win this bounty you must post a complete license along with a legal opinion on why it would be the most effective means at achieving the following goals:

1) Preventing copycats that believe in intelectual property from using our code to launch derivative DACs that fail to honor our social consensus.
2) Not preventing businesses from using any DAC that honors SCSL, even if they support IP... we don't want to restrict the use of DACs that follow the SCSL in any way shape or form.
3) Preventing businesses that believe in intelectual property from using any DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL
4) Define the AngelShares social consensus in as clear and unambiguous terms as possible.
5) Frees the developers of DACs from any liability resulting from the use of the code or failures in the code.

Invictus will select a license to release our software under and will pay this bounty to the writer(s) of the license.   We expect the process of writing the license to be cooperative and iterative.  All drafts must be made public and to win the bounty the winning SCSL license must have consent from all contributors as judged by Invictus. 

This bounty is in the PENDING status meaning we reserve the right to change the terms of the bounty while we get feedback from the community.  Once terms have been established we will change the status to [ACTIVE] which means the terms are locked in.   If you have feedback or suggestions on how to structure this bounty, evaluate submissions, and arbitrate disputes then please post now.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: bytemaster on December 28, 2013, 04:36:53 pm

As it comes to software license, it is still not clear what positioning this group has to independent software developers that do not release source code due to various reasons.

yvg1900

If they renounce all ip then they are ok.   If they honor social consensus they are ok.  Otherwise the cannot even run the resulting exe whether they developed it or not.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: barwizi on December 28, 2013, 08:19:13 pm
Thoughts?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: bytemaster on December 28, 2013, 08:26:12 pm
Thoughts?

This license shouldn't be associated with Invictus, we are only leading the AngelShares, BitShares, ProtoShares movement.  This license should grant every AngelShare or ProtoShare holder standing to enforce it.  The AngelShare and ProtoShare holders are the ones funding this development effort and not Invictus. 
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: coolspeed on December 29, 2013, 08:22:47 am
It seems that the title is already determined:
Social Consensus Software License (SCSL)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: luckybit on December 29, 2013, 09:31:00 am
It seems that the title is already determined:
Social Consensus Software License (SCSL)

And it has to apply to all future DACs which use this license and not just Bitshares. Anyone who uses code written under the SCSL should abide by the SCSL. A good model for this would be the GPL and copyleft licenses such as the Creative Commons.

Invictus Innovations should not be in control of this because it's bigger than Invictus Innovations. This license is supposed to last even if Invictus Innovations goes out of business.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: bytemaster on December 31, 2013, 01:24:17 am
I the event that I3 goes out of business, it is their job to pass the rights to another entity otherwise the License becomes un-enforceable.

While there are ways of getting around centralizing in this regard, it has the nasty habit of becoming way too open to intepretation, as entities my begin to selectively apply it or ignore it based on the fact that they too may hold shares and as a result makes them an authority as well.

I think it would be good to find a way that holders of PTS / AGS retain standing and that owning AGS does not grant you an exemption to the license.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: barwizi on December 31, 2013, 05:33:06 am
I the event that I3 goes out of business, it is their job to pass the rights to another entity otherwise the License becomes un-enforceable.

While there are ways of getting around centralizing in this regard, it has the nasty habit of becoming way too open to intepretation, as entities my begin to selectively apply it or ignore it based on the fact that they too may hold shares and as a result makes them an authority as well.

I think it would be good to find a way that holders of PTS / AGS retain standing and that owning AGS does not grant you an exemption to the license.

Hmm, it is possible, i'll do some research and try to get it right.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: barwizi on December 31, 2013, 06:16:42 am
Done... comments?

Oh, if anyone wants to work together, we can make it a collaborative work, just pm me and i'll make a google doc we can both access and modify.

I've changed it such that any holder of PTS/AGS can retain standing, but also explicitly stated that a holder cannot attempt to exempt themselves.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: bytemaster on December 31, 2013, 06:39:24 am
Done... comments?

Oh, if anyone wants to work together, we can make it a collaborative work, just pm me and i'll make a google doc we can both access and modify.

I've changed it such that any holder of PTS/AGS can retain standing, but also explicitly stated that a holder cannot attempt to exempt themselves.

Are you a lawyer and what are your qualifications for writing such a license? 
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [PENDING]
Post by: barwizi on December 31, 2013, 06:45:39 am
Done... comments?

Oh, if anyone wants to work together, we can make it a collaborative work, just pm me and i'll make a google doc we can both access and modify.

I've changed it such that any holder of PTS/AGS can retain standing, but also explicitly stated that a holder cannot attempt to exempt themselves.

Are you a lawyer and what are your qualifications for writing such a license?

Oh, is this bounty for qualified Lawyers only? I did a minor in law, I wrote this based on my understanding of Law and your requirements. For perspective i looked at how other licenses are structured. Is that going to be a problem?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 01, 2014, 06:44:37 pm
Inspiration: http://p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 01, 2014, 06:55:03 pm
Inspiration: http://p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft

Thanks.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 01, 2014, 08:34:30 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit?usp=sharing

I am now using the above doc, i will be working on it at all times of the day so feel free to check in. I have put it in a public place so as to stay within and support the set of rules I put forward for bounty execution. The system works lol.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 02, 2014, 11:22:34 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit?usp=sharing

I am now using the above doc, i will be working on it at all times of the day so feel free to check in. I have put it in a public place so as to stay within and support the set of rules I put forward for bounty execution. The system works lol.
If I make contributions to this will I get credit?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 02, 2014, 11:32:33 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit?usp=sharing

I am now using the above doc, i will be working on it at all times of the day so feel free to check in. I have put it in a public place so as to stay within and support the set of rules I put forward for bounty execution. The system works lol.
If I make contributions to this will I get credit?

of course, request Document permissions on google and i'll allow. Thanks!!
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 02, 2014, 05:33:32 pm
Here is a version of based on the GPLv3 template which anyone can help me complete and edit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yEGecQg78tiH81PQdgroaJklwPHTtfm1UFphC4g_BEg/edit?usp=sharing

I filled some of it in but anyone else is free to join in. If there is a lawyer here, please change the language or fill in this license. I'm not a lawyer and did the best I could based on the GPLv3.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 02, 2014, 06:20:00 pm
Here is a version of based on the GPLv3 template which anyone can help me complete and edit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yEGecQg78tiH81PQdgroaJklwPHTtfm1UFphC4g_BEg/edit?usp=sharing

I filled some of it in but anyone else is free to join in. If there is a lawyer here, please change the language or fill in this license. I'm not a lawyer and did the best I could based on the GPLv3.

Great work but you may want to read the first line of GPL before Preamble, that's why i chose to structure mine differently. Mind if i purger yours for some clauses? Also you may want to read the article bytemaster linked.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 03, 2014, 07:10:52 am
Here is a version of based on the GPLv3 template which anyone can help me complete and edit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yEGecQg78tiH81PQdgroaJklwPHTtfm1UFphC4g_BEg/edit?usp=sharing

I filled some of it in but anyone else is free to join in. If there is a lawyer here, please change the language or fill in this license. I'm not a lawyer and did the best I could based on the GPLv3.

Great work but you may want to read the first line of GPL before Preamble, that's why i chose to structure mine differently. Mind if i purger yours for some clauses? Also you may want to read the article bytemaster linked.

Lets work together on this and split the bounty. A third party (Bytemaster) should review both of licenses to determine which direction it should go. Perhaps a combination of both is best. Then we edit it in a shared document and use comments to discuss it so that anyone can review our work and see what our thoughts were on the forum.



Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: cabooseza on January 03, 2014, 12:10:31 pm
I work for lawyers. So can help you guys, (I get advise for free  ;D)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: pgbit on January 03, 2014, 02:13:27 pm
Not sure where to park this. Minor typo on consensus on the website, should be corrected by the spelling police:
http://invictus-innovations.com/social-concensus
also appears on main page
http://invictus-innovations.com/
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 03, 2014, 02:34:19 pm
more modifications made. If you want to help, jus request permission to modify the document and i'll accept.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 04, 2014, 06:33:20 am

For this bounty, there is a 10 PTS referral reward for anyone who refers a qualified lawyer that wins the bounty.  The 10PTS will be divided among all referrals proportional to the contribution of the referred lawyer.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 04, 2014, 07:09:56 am

For this bounty, there is a 10 PTS referral reward for anyone who refers a qualified lawyer that wins the bounty.  The 10PTS will be divided among all referrals proportional to the contribution of the referred lawyer.

Sorry for the long delay processing this, I have been working on Keyhotee.  This statement has been there from the beginning, I will allow anyone to work on the license as long as a lawyer reviews the results and provides a legal opinion.  Having a solid starting point will be good.  I will have some from our team provide you feedback as soon as possible.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: cabooseza on January 06, 2014, 09:11:16 am
As i stated, say to me when its done (ie draft 1) and i will let my guys look into it, and will give you a write up as well then u can tweak it from there
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 06, 2014, 09:14:19 am
As i stated, say to me when its done and i will let my guys look into it, and will give you a write up as well

 yeah, i think it's ready for a professional opinion. go ahead.  :)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: cabooseza on January 06, 2014, 09:54:31 am
Ok emailed one of the partners, she will do a write up see what she says

Will get feedback in the next day or so
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 06, 2014, 10:03:22 pm
I have written a temporary license here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QKjlYFsyCPf_bKkYfa6-GfTV06lKL1NwnNj5LKkustI/edit?usp=sharing

It's purpose is to prevent abuse of the code while we wait for the SCSL. If approved this one will be added immediately to the git so that anyone downloading or forking will have it.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 06, 2014, 10:18:23 pm
I have written a temporary license here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QKjlYFsyCPf_bKkYfa6-GfTV06lKL1NwnNj5LKkustI/edit?usp=sharing

It's purpose is to prevent abuse of the code while we wait for the SCSL. If approved this one will be added immediately to the git so that anyone downloading or forking will have it.

1:1 mapping needs to be rephrased to 10% of ultimate money supply proportional to holders of PTS at the time of launch or something like that.  1:1 is not clear enough.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 07, 2014, 06:44:45 am
barwizi, can you accept my request to edit the google doc?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 07, 2014, 06:56:15 am
[email protected]
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 07, 2014, 07:00:26 am
[email protected]

done
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 07, 2014, 08:05:24 am
[email protected]

Welcome Andy!    I look forward to seeing what you can do with this!
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: cabooseza on January 08, 2014, 10:00:39 am
You guys on skype or something?

Got back what the partner said to me and there is a few changes thats need to be made, but will rather talk to everyone in a group instead of post, wait, post wait
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: cabooseza on January 08, 2014, 10:08:16 am
Barwizi

Add me to the documentation for editing whitebrain(dot)greyleaf(at)gmail(dot)com
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 08, 2014, 11:26:10 am
Barwizi

Add me to the documentation for editing whitebrain(dot)greyleaf(at)gmail(dot)com

please make sure to comment . done
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: cabooseza on January 08, 2014, 11:38:55 am
Will comment BEFORE making changes

Commented a few things, byte if u wanna take a lookie :)

Barwizi making changes at the mo
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 10, 2014, 10:55:01 am
cabooseza has brought in his ideas as well as Andy. I would like to get some feedback please.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: fuckingegg on January 10, 2014, 12:53:07 pm
post for support
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 10, 2014, 12:54:36 pm
post for support

Thanks, gonna spread the word.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 10, 2014, 04:14:43 pm
I talked with Andy last night and he said he is about 75% done tweaking the work barwizi started with.  I suspect he will be posting his edits soon.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 10, 2014, 04:57:03 pm
I talked with Andy last night and he said he is about 75% done tweaking the work barwizi started with.  I suspect he will be posting his edits soon.

I'll be waiting to see. This document is a priority, already it's absence is causing problems.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 10, 2014, 11:56:33 pm
I talked with Andy last night and he said he is about 75% done tweaking the work barwizi started with.  I suspect he will be posting his edits soon.

I'll be waiting to see. This document is a priority, already it's absence is causing problems.

He has been sending me questions from time to time, so I know he is actively working on it.  Just got a question a minute ago.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 10, 2014, 11:59:40 pm
I talked with Andy last night and he said he is about 75% done tweaking the work barwizi started with.  I suspect he will be posting his edits soon.

I'll be waiting to see. This document is a priority, already it's absence is causing problems.

He has been sending me questions from time to time, so I know he is actively working on it.  Just got a question a minute ago.

lol, didnt we agree on public development  :D
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 11, 2014, 12:50:29 am

I talked with Andy last night and he said he is about 75% done tweaking the work barwizi started with.  I suspect he will be posting his edits soon.

I'll be waiting to see. This document is a priority, already it's absence is causing problems.

He has been sending me questions from time to time, so I know he is actively working on it.  Just got a question a minute ago.

lol, didnt we agree on public development  :D

I told him to post his progress tonight. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: earthbound on January 11, 2014, 03:19:44 am
Okay! Lookie here! I penned an epic! :)

These are my thoughts regarding item 3) Preventing businesses that believe in intellectual property from using any DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL:

Why?

Observations to consider, and factors to balance:

At some point--possibly sooner than you think, if it is not so already--the Really Big Boys will not only want a piece of the "pie," they will catch on to the fact they too can create incredibly good pies (as it were) out of thin air. What you can probably count on, however, is that they will fail to appreciate how exactly your social contract and model empowers your, uh, pies. They will therefore expend great efforts in forming what you might only regard as half-baked pies; and worse, if you adopt a model which is at odds with their silly proprietary crutches, they might either be too frightened to proceed more aggressively with their ideas--as the market hopes they will--let's bring everything out at full speed and see what survives and what doesn't!--or they might fumble with the difficulties and inevitable misunderstandings and/or perceived vagaries of your model.

Whatever their possible weaknesses (and who knows but what they may be right with some of their silly ideas that you might regard as crutches), I propose that we absolutely want to welcome the Really Big Boys with arms as wide open as they can possibly stretch.

How wide?

A Public Domain Dedication-wide. My explanation of how I believe this will best advance your cause, will segue from the following philosophical tract which I beg you to indulge.

I personally strongly dislike any license which places any constraints whatever on anyone. (That means both copyright and copyleft, and anything and everything so obligatory-copy-or-not-copy-whatever.) I mockingly penned a variant of the Public Domain Dedication in rebellion against such.

http://www.earthbound.io/legal/absa-freaking-lutely-anything-license1.0.txt

It is my opinion that all (most?) copyright and license etc. organizational/rights models have produced various things of value. I can point to one brilliant piece of software and say: Open Source created that, and I can point to another brilliant piece of software and say: Proprietary technology/intellectual property/copyright methods made that. (Or, if it isn't necessarily brilliant, the fact that they got so many people to use it despite the fact is brilliant . . . if perhaps sickening . . .)

I therefore personally would not wish to curtail any process of innovation which anyone chooses to undertake, nor the necessarily associated intellectual property ideologies (or lack thereof) from which they would pursue their undertaking. This includes knowingly and voluntarily risking that anyone could therefore undertake what I consider to be abuses of bodies of work which I have created, hoping that somewhere in the mix of those abuses there is also a mix of benefits to society. (Actually, that is an arguable case for current copyright/trademark/patent laws. Possibly with the exception of software patents, and some copyright whores of corporations (I really can't use any other word there.)

Probably the only exception I would make is that I would absolutely want to forestall intellectual property/copyright etc. trolls from abusing the public with claims that my work violates their intellectual rights/copyrights, so that under the duress and intimidation ("chilling effect") of such claims, those whom they oppose are squelched out of existence. An example of this horror is in software patents surrounding video codecs. The minefield of video codec intellectual property laws and litigations is in my opinion a despicable pandora (yes--let's mix these metaphors--a pandora of minefields), which has inhibited so much innovation and, ultimately I would argue, has also undermined the whole market and area of video codecs, and associated video copying/distribution means, etc. The last I researched it, intellectual property questions about video codecs place a stranglehold on those who wish to simply create absolutely Public Domain/royalty/intellectual-property-entanglement-free video codecs. Troll after troll lays in wait to pounce on any new video codec which they claim abuses their rights in some algorithm or idea.

A Public Domain Dedication could prevent that by making (for example) the following clear: 1) what exactly you've contributed that is original and marketable--arguably even disruptive-- 2) that you irrevocably decree that anyone can exploit those ideas without any limitation and for any purpose whatever.

This naturally and inherently squelches all questions of copyright trolling, because it makes it clear that you did this first, and you also said that anybody else can do this without limitation, so that anyone who comes along and claims otherwise (in other words, any troll X who claims others can't use the ideas for profit, because troll X supposedly has sole rights to those ideas) -- anyone who claims otherwise is dismissed with prejudice, owing to the very public, well-known origin of those actual rights, and that moreover, those rights were and are irrevocably dedicated to everyone.

Yes indeed, those irrevocably dedicated rights include the right to go all, uh, closed-source on the public, if anyone wishes to. So, no, this would not prevent others from e.g. creating closed-source or otherwise proprietary clones of your ideas. But for the reasons I gave after I linked to my text, it is my strong preference to risk that.

Consider what is even now unfolding in these forums, surrounding GPU proof-of-work momentum (PTS/MMC or whatever else) miners. What model are so many choosing (or at least initially they have), right here in an arena where you would think there is hearty support of an open-source model? They're all trying to bait people into mining with miners which they (pointedly!) refuse to open-source, possibly owing to the (ridiculous!) fear that if they did so, some portion of a supposedly finite pie would become lost to them.

You paid dga a very nice ProtoShares bounty to open-source his GPU miner code, and then a few ran off with the code, modified it to run on Windows, compiled it, did not (so far as I'm aware) publicly post their modifications of the source, but did release binaries . . . which mine a percent of the time to their own address. Meanwhile, I for example want access to the source so that I can e.g. modify it to recognize more than one graphics card--I might hastily pull the source, code my proposed changes, and push it back up if the source was there -- but I can't: yes, a lot of miners are making ~10x the profits they previously did . . . while innovation is stifled for the gambit.

(By the way, EDIT: I keep waffling about whether I support completely open-source code for miners or closed-source where I donate a percent of mining to the coder. I think I'd like both together best.)

Your development philosophy/social contract etc. may have difficulty gaining full traction among the very folks who are most enthusiastic about the potential outcomes of your work!

What kind of traction do you expect your model will find among, say the Really Big Boys?

It's simply fundamentally incompatible with the mechanisms they've exploited to make their untold fortunes. That is a hard, hard sell. (Apparently, even among many of your peers who highly esteem you.)

If Invictus Innovations wishes to be part of a truly global and truly transformative/distruptive movement, the fact of the matter is that you've got to be able to let folks who prefer a different playbook to operate from that playbook. And last I heard, the proprietary/closed/secretive playbook was still very much the playbook of, uh, the world's largest and most powerful corporations. (And many people who frequent this forum.)

The risk is that your work will probably be abused by so many silly fools. The benefit, however, is that in enabling (as you may suppose) people to do whatever they will, those who would abuse your work and yet who also wield enormous power--these will expose your ideas to the wider world. And you know what? The wider world will become curious, get educated about what's going on, and see that there's a better way to do it . . . and then they might be motivated to start up their own enterprises in a globally frictionless market, and wipe the Really Big Boys' arses with their better approaches and ideas.

And what of the folks who agree with your philosophy/approach? Well, whatever way you go with this philosophically, the folks who like your approach will follow it.

However, if the Really Big Boys are warded off by fear of breaking your model/social/intellectual property/whatever contract, the masses whom they could potentially expose the ideas to may therefore not be so exposed to such ideas (and their origins). But if the Really Big Boys are made very welcome to try whatever the heck they think is a good idea, they might give it a shot. Yeah they may be liable to not quite "get it," and make mistakes in what they try--there are hundreds of very ridiculous patent applications out there which for all the world describe only a shadow of Bitcoin, because the folks who file them simply do not yet fully grasp the technology, and the nature of this Blockchain Revolution, shall we call it.

And while the Really Big Boys are giving it a shot ... the stakes will be made higher for those who would play in the field even against the Very Big Boys . . . and the potential payoffs will therefore also be higher.

All that said, I would not wish to relinquish moral rights in my work (and I understand that a Public Domain Dedication cannot relinquish those rights, and that no license can). This includes the moral right to publicly object to any abuses of my work, knowing full well that my only accomplishment in such objections may be merely expressing my view. Which views may or may not be of worth to others. Which views may or may not liberally heap shame on others who flagrantly abuse my work.

To that end, you are entirely free to adapt that very text I cite above. Perhaps in the section:

Code: [Select]
==THIS WOULD BE A PREAMBLE IF IT ADDED ANYTHING OF WORTH TO THE PRECEDING AND IF IT CAME BEFORE IT==
-- perhaps in that section, you could express your wishes as to how people use your model/code/software/process etc., and opinion that all intellectually property is, well, malarkey. You could, moreover, describe the general organizational/process/logical/ideological/systems organization of e.g. Keyhotee/Bitshares/Distributed Autonomous Corporations/Blockchain-based contracts/Digital Assets, and assert e.g. your organizations' contributions of original expressions and ideas in software/social engineering etc. -- in other words, you could express and lay claim to intellectual property rights to everything original Invictus has created, and at the same time permanently and irrevocably deed all such rights to the Public Domain. It would meanwhile preserve your moral rights (more about that in a bit), which are in any case irrevocable, and moreover they are also the better power and influence in this enterprise (more about that in a bit).

As described, this would first dismiss the dangers of intellectual property trolls by making it prominently clear that no, these ideas were your ideas, and you dedicated as many of the rights in them to the Public Domain, so that everyone has the right to do whatever they want with these ideas--including using the ideas in ways that anyone would pretend to have sole rights to--while clearly, they don't actually have those rights--because everyone has those rights, and they are simply trolls.

A Public Domain Dedication would, I think, best open up the whole world of possibility to, well, the whole world. It would open up all the possible global risk/reward ratios that who-knows-what-people out there will discover and invent. Let silly bandits and nincompoops be silly bandits and nincompoops. But please make it as easy as possible to play with your ideas and code, because the people whom you hope will see through the bandits/nincompoops probably will, and as I've described, they'll probably be the ones to show up and show how it should really be done.

Also, if you express your ideology/social contract clearly in the section (of my above linked dedication) which I invite you to, and couple this with an expressed wish that everyone will follow that guideline, I think that might best vouchsafe your moral rights. This is because your expressed wishes will be coupled with the full risk of your gamble that people might abuse their rights and go against your wishes--and when they do, and when they topple as a consequence, so much better the lesson of experience both for them and for bystanders.

(And so much the better your right to get up and say "I told you so!--" although I hope you would let bitter experience punish people enough, without adding ridicule to defeat.)

Seriously, please freely adapt the Public Domain Dedication which I have written and linked above--who would not want to read something that so joyfully thumbs its nose at so many restrictions, if I may say so? Yeah, maybe some would write it off as simply loony. But folks who are inclined to write you off are going to do that anyway, whatever you do.

All of the above is why I think a Public Domain dedication is the best option. It would necessarily have to exclude everything you've made use of which is e.g. under copyleft/copyright models: I would just put all of your work in the Public Domain.

I have urgent legal advice for Invictus, which I will email or message to you privately.

[Asides: I'm inclined to agree with you that so many ideas around intellectual copyright are silly, btw, and this stunner of an article was among such things as began to persuade me thus: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20111005102810176

I might make exceptions for the idea of copyright of general creative, non-mathematical works, but, for anything mathematical (which is all software), I'm inclined to think because strictly and literally, all software is zeros and ones (or in the case of qubits, possibly any other number base system), it cannot and should not be copywriteable. Intel was laughed at for attempting to copyright the number 8086, but at the logical, literal, final express form of software, too many people copyright large numbers.]
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: earthbound on January 11, 2014, 03:37:40 am
ALSO: If all or most other rights are given for the risk/benefit of the world, yet I think that trademark rights should be well wielded and defended. I think the dual open-source/well-defended trademark approach of the Mozilla Foundation is an excellent example of this.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 11, 2014, 06:26:54 am
wow much comment!!! very word!! lol

It's great to see that people are showing more interest in this document. I'd like to start by asking, do you understand what AGS is, not only the name but what it represents? A lot of people have made some donations and taken some risks to form a collective that shall be the Genesis of Decentralized Autonomous Companies. Just like Bitcoin changed how people think of money in a way, DACs are a revolutionary idea for how to conduct eCommerce.

I hope you are not offended but your speech has deep roots in anarchism, which frankly does not work for any business model. Note, i say BUSINESS. This community is not actively seeking to circumvent traditional systems, we have a vision, that of decentralized enterprises that function completely virtually and benefit us. We intend to at some point interact with businesses that operate in the physical world and as a result wee must take that into account. The idea of decentralization and anonymity may have relevance to anarchism, but that is another conversation.

Digital currency is not illegal, it is just unregulated tender. In the event that it's acceptance becomes wider, as you say the Big Boys will want in. We are not blocking them, we are saying, let them bring their ideas, money and join the collective so that we all benefit. Should such an entity exist and wish to use our ideas and software, which as you said come from nothing, they should not have a problem giving us 10% of nothing.

DACs are not a snub at other organizations, They are business and as such the property should be treated thus. I have invested a certain amount and so have many others, and we would like to protect our investment, not by completely making our product inaccessible, but by making it accessible to those who wish to create value with us. That is what copyfarleft is about. It benefits the community, and not on an obscene scale.

Another things is, should one of the "Big boys" want in, they can easily go make their own, even as far as making it from scratch, they benefit nothing except possible litigation by coming here. You seem very interested in the workings of large companies, i work for one, and i can tell you that if they become interested in PTS 50 million is an amount they would easily shell out to buy all the shares out there. Hell, they would just post a standing offer that would entice all holders to sell without a noticeable dent in their account.

My point is, we want to protect the investments of time money and labour, an just as it states in the license, if you wanna use the software 10% is a pittance if your business model is good. And along with that 10% comes a large amount of free marketing, experienced programmers to consult, infrastructure and the added caveat that the PTS you hold will entitle you to a % of other DACs.

The only person loosing out here is copy-paste profiteers and those who would take the ideas out of the community without paying royalties. So no, i do not believe your idea is applicable on investors funds and ideas.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 11, 2014, 12:23:51 pm
wow much comment!!! very word!! lol

It's great to see that people are showing more interest in this document. I'd like to start by asking, do you understand what AGS is, not only the name but what it represents? A lot of people have made some donations and taken some risks to form a collective that shall be the Genesis of Decentralized Autonomous Companies. Just like Bitcoin changed how people think of money in a way, DACs are a revolutionary idea for how to conduct eCommerce.

I hope you are not offended but your speech has deep roots in anarchism, which frankly does not work for any business model. Note, i say BUSINESS. This community is not actively seeking to circumvent traditional systems, we have a vision, that of decentralized enterprises that function completely virtually and benefit us. We intend to at some point interact with businesses that operate in the physical world and as a result wee must take that into account. The idea of decentralization and anonymity may have relevance to anarchism, but that is another conversation.

Digital currency is not illegal, it is just unregulated tender. In the event that it's acceptance becomes wider, as you say the Big Boys will want in. We are not blocking them, we are saying, let them bring their ideas, money and join the collective so that we all benefit. Should such an entity exist and wish to use our ideas and software, which as you said come from nothing, they should not have a problem giving us 10% of nothing.

DACs are not a snub at other organizations, They are business and as such the property should be treated thus. I have invested a certain amount and so have many others, and we would like to protect our investment, not by completely making our product inaccessible, but by making it accessible to those who wish to create value with us. That is what copyfarleft is about. It benefits the community, and not on an obscene scale.

Another things is, should one of the "Big boys" want in, they can easily go make their own, even as far as making it from scratch, they benefit nothing except possible litigation by coming here. You seem very interested in the workings of large companies, i work for one, and i can tell you that if they become interested in PTS 50 million is an amount they would easily shell out to buy all the shares out there. Hell, they would just post a standing offer that would entice all holders to sell without a noticeable dent in their account.

My point is, we want to protect the investments of time money and labour, an just as it states in the license, if you wanna use the software 10% is a pittance if your business model is good. And along with that 10% comes a large amount of free marketing, experienced programmers to consult, infrastructure and the added caveat that the PTS you hold will entitle you to a % of other DACs.

The only person loosing out here is copy-paste profiteers and those who would take the ideas out of the community without paying royalties. So no, i do not believe your idea is applicable on investors funds and ideas.

+1

I agree and think we should use our free speech capability to it's fullest extent to protect the the integrity of the DAC community. Do we want some large corporation who has no dealings with the community to come along and patent important technology and then sue people later on? Do we want to promote an economically self sustaining community? To do that we require that a copy left license exist for the same reason that the GPL has shown itself to be necessary.

If big business has big money to contribute to our community then the license does not prevent them from contributing. If they want to take the code, remix and improve upon it then they can just so long as they respect the social contract/consensus. That respect to the social contract/consensus will produce a self sustaining community which in my opinion is important if you want to have sustainable decentralization.

Big businesses are often centralized businesses. If they enter the community and are allowed to completely change the social contract to their benefit then eventually the same centralization from big business will appear in this community. A license can discourage that centralization on the social and business levels by baking into the license itself some speech which could legally guarantee that the DAC community and whatever it grows into in the future remains a free and open frontier.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 11, 2014, 12:55:59 pm
Okay! Lookie here! I penned an epic! :)

These are my thoughts regarding item 3) Preventing businesses that believe in intellectual property from using any DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL:



My opinion is that every entity which seeks to become part of something has an obligation and responsibility to be a good citizen of whatever they are becoming part of. The rules have already been agreed upon and established. Latecomers should abide by the rules set forth before they arrived and the social consensus / contract represents what the community believes to be the minimum level of fairness. The social consensus license gives the social contract some teeth so that the will of the community must be respected by entities coming from other communities.

Just as we are expected to follow whatever money transmitter laws and other rules they put up to protect their community they should be expected to follow the rules we set up to protect our community. I don't see why we should give them a pass when we don't get a pass when we try to open a bank account or set up a business to turn fiat into Bitshares.

At some point--possibly sooner than you think, if it is not so already--the Really Big Boys will not only want a piece of the "pie," they will catch on to the fact they too can create incredibly good pies (as it were) out of thin air.
Bitshares, Protoshares, Bitcoin, none of this was created out of thin air. You think the code wrote itself? You think all the philosophy behind it came out of thin air? The psychological insights? The marketing? What about the people willing to take risks, uncertain as to whether or not they'll end up in jail over it?

It did not come out of thin air. Value never comes out of thin air. If people did not have faith in the Bitcoin protocol and if people did not believe in the code then it would have no value and the Big Boys wouldn't have picked up on it.

What you can probably count on, however, is that they will fail to appreciate how exactly your social contract and model empowers your, uh, pies. They will therefore expend great efforts in forming what you might only regard as half-baked pies; and worse, if you adopt a model which is at odds with their silly proprietary crutches, they might either be too frightened to proceed more aggressively with their ideas--as the market hopes they will--let's bring everything out at full speed and see what survives and what doesn't!--or they might fumble with the difficulties and inevitable misunderstandings and/or perceived vagaries of your model.
They might try to make a patented version of Bitcoin. Apple is already attempting something like that, as is JP Morgan, IBM and others. They have patents right now which seem to be for types of software which are a remarkably similar to Bitcoin.

What we don't want is for DACs to end up patented by some big company that had nothing to do with creating the first DAC. In fact if you go with copy left then it cannot be patented at all.

Whatever their possible weaknesses (and who knows but what they may be right with some of their silly ideas that you might regard as crutches), I propose that we absolutely want to welcome the Really Big Boys with arms as wide open as they can possibly stretch.
Why? Are the Big Boys welcoming these ideas with open arms? They aren't removing their regulations on crowd funding and their 1 million dollar limitation. The social consensus license is perhaps one of the best legal shields to protect the community if used appropriately. There is no reason that I can see why the social consensus license should be watered down or opened up to let the Big Banks in unless they are willing to play by the rules the community sets for them in advance. Just as the Big Boys are worried about money laundering, drugs, and they demand that we follow their rules to interact with the banking community I don't see why our community cannot have rules of its own which we demand they play by in order to use technology developed by our community using our decentralized processes.

If they want to benefit from decentralized technology they should promote decentralization. The social consensus license is just one possible license to promote decentralization.
I personally strongly dislike any license which places any constraints whatever on anyone. (That means both copyright and copyleft, and anything and everything so obligatory-copy-or-not-copy-whatever.) I mockingly penned a variant of the Public Domain Dedication in rebellion against such.
The purpose of a software license is to interface with the wider community which is built up on rules, laws, courts and so on. If you have no language to interact with their system then you'll be completely exploited by it. If your license is completely permissive and lets anyone do anything then you wont have a community for very long and it wont be very sustainable because there won't be any ability to set rules.

If you believe there should be no rules it does not change the fact that you cannot promote decentralization without rules. These rules could be like the axioms in the Bitshares white paper or in the form of a social consensus license but having it written down can show that you have a clear set of intentions.

It is my opinion that all (most?) copyright and license etc. organizational/rights models have produced various things of value. I can point to one brilliant piece of software and say: Open Source created that, and I can point to another brilliant piece of software and say: Proprietary technology/intellectual property/copyright methods made that.
This is a philosophical argument but I'll say that if you're trying to create decentralized, open, community owned software then software patents and copyright make it very hard to do that because it stifles innovation. Proprietary technology if it is closed source cannot be trusted.
I therefore personally would not wish to curtail any process of innovation which anyone chooses to undertake, nor the necessarily associated intellectual property ideologies (or lack thereof) from which they would pursue their undertaking.
I agree with this in theory. In practice it's just not possible to do it like that and protect yourself from predatory Big Boys who wont respect your community or any of it's principles. So how do you build a community without making the intentions known to everyone, whether they believe in the law or not? You can make it closed source but then you're breaking your own principle of being open, so the way to maintain the principle of being open while also making your intentions the law, requires that you create a software license where it is made clear. Since the community already agrees on the 10% going to Protoshares, the social consensus license would put that intention into a legally recognized document which the Big Boys would have to respect.


This includes knowingly and voluntarily risking that anyone could therefore undertake what I consider to be abuses of bodies of work which I have created, hoping that somewhere in the mix of those abuses there is also a mix of benefits to society.
Why rely on hope? This is a philosophical argument, but I see no reason why all aspects of free speech should not be used to promote the social contract/consensus. That means legal tools like the social consensus software license, that could mean legally forming your businesses in such a way that respect for the social consensus is baked in. Why even give them the option to violate the social consensus when you can use all your resources to make it where there is a strong deterrent against violating the social consensus?

You don't have to rely on hope. If someone violates the social consensus then they are violating the software license and for that reason no business will be able to violate it. Individuals might be able to violate it if they are willing to ignore the law, but businesses cannot.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 11, 2014, 01:35:32 pm
Individuals might be able to violate it if they are willing to ignore the law, but businesses cannot.

Considering the money and support behind PTS most individuals that have at least a basic understanding of the crypto-world will jump at the chance of having a ready user/customer base.

Even a copy-paste idiot will see the immeasurable advantage, we can now deploy pools, explorers and we are working on new tech that is based of the PTS code. Why take an unnecessary risk of going it alone, when they have all that at their disposal for free?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 11, 2014, 01:40:58 pm
Individuals might be able to violate it if they are willing to ignore the law, but businesses cannot.

Considering the money and support behind PTS most individuals that have at least a basic understanding of the crypto-world will jump at the chance of having a ready user/customer base.

Even a copy-paste idiot will see the immeasurable advantage, we can now deploy pools, explorers and we are working on new tech that is based of the PTS code. Why take an unnecessary risk of going it alone, when they have all that at their disposal for free?

It's a lot like having home court advantage in basketball. When you go against the home team on their court you can expect to be booed and shunned.

Ideally we want to make a DAC development kit which makes it so easy to do it the right way that no one has the incentive to do it the hard way.

A good model is take a look at the video game industry in the golden era where you had Nintendo, Sega, Sony. They all made their development kits as easy as possible, but they charged a licensing fee to launch titles on their platforms.

Game developers had to compete to create and launch the best games but if they wanted to use the development kits and launch it on the Nintendo, Sony or Sega platforms they had to pay the license fee.  If not for the license fees Nintendo and Sega for example would never have had the money to build the most cutting edge Video Game systems. They built the cutting edge platforms and provided the development kit to allow anyone to launch games on their platform but it isn't free to build the cutting edge Video Game systems and most of these systems were launched at a loss forcing them to make the money back in licensing fees.

The Video Game industry model is not perfect, but the one area where they get it right is in the standardized development kit. You need to make a standardized development kit for DACs so that developers can launch DACs on your platform with ease. The cost of them using that development kit is that they must honor the social consensus software license which is 10%.

Honestly 10% isn't all that bad if we think of DACs like we think of Video Game titles.
Quote
Personal computer platforms (such as Linux, OS X, and Windows) are traditionally financially more accessible to independent game developers than video game consoles. Aside from basic development costs, console game developers are required to pay fees to license the required Software Development Kits (SDKs) from the console maker. Manufacturers often impose a strict approval process and take a percentage of the game's net profit in addition to yearly developer fees. To develop for Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360, or PlayStation 3 requires an SDK license fee of between US$2,000 and $10,000, in addition to yearly developer fees and profit cuts, although development for Xbox Live Indie Games only requires a $99/year Creators Club membership and Microsoft takes 30% of sales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_video_game_development
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: earthbound on January 11, 2014, 08:33:27 pm
I'm puzzled by the apparent implicit expectation that if something is not protected by copyfarleft than it can pave a way for patent trolls etc. A Public Domain Dedication of something which could potentially be patented, but which is not; this would preclude patent trolls from patenting any such thing as the Public Domain Dedication claims and proves as its original invention, and which is already so freely and widely either used or planned for use that nobody could reasonably claim exclusive right to it. There is substantial precident that shows this. The many attempted patents which you describe by e.g. Apple and J.P. morgan are laughed out of the U.S. patent office, because the patent office (surprisingly and wisely!) sees that they are shadows of ideas that nobody can patent because they are already in wide and free use. It's like trying to trademark a number (the way Intel tried to trademark the number 8088, and were laughted at for it). J.P. Morgan's pretentious digital currency patents have been rejected by the Patent office more than a hundred times. So also will Apple's (even if they apply a hundred times). Or, if not, the public has a hella case to bring against Apple, and Apple will not ultimately win, provided the public is willing and able to fight.

About value being made "out of thin air," of course I do not literally mean that the value is made out of thin air. What I do mean is that its a model which can create value with surprising ease--after the train gets going. Of course it takes a terrible lot of sweat, coal and steam to get the train going.

Also, I'm hearing two things at odds:

1) We must protect our investment from abuses e.g. patent trolls or large enterprises who would simply step in and poach our efforts, running off with so much value while giving nothing back.

2) Giving ten percent to the folks who back an enterprise from the get-go is "pittance," so nobody has any reason to do the wrong thing (to not give that ten percent).

Well, if nobody has any reason not to do the right thing, why should we contractually oblige them to?

I believe I am arguing for benevolent anarchism--yes, there are no rules other than that you hope others will do the right thing, because they obviously have no compelling reasons not to. It is an implied contract: I trust you not to mess with me, and I will freely exchange ideas and efforts with you for so long as it seems to me apparent that you will hold by this obligation which is so obvious that yes, of course I formally ask you to do what's right . . . but how do we always know what's right or best? What is right or best can change with circumstances; even drastically.

And what about drastic, unexpected changes? What necesittates benevolent anarchism is precisely the uncertainty which is underscored by the contradictions in your comments. One minute, your comments center on concern about people doing the wrong thing, and the next minute, you emphasize that they clearly have no reason to do the wrong thing--they only have reasons to do the right thing.

Well, which is it?

I think we don't know (and hence we vascillate on the question) because we don't yet know whether the Social Contract we propose to form is even the ideal contract. This technology and social engineering (and it really is social engineering) is so new and so novel that nobody could possibly predict what will come of it. It therefore needs to have a social setting which is so very flexible as to allow people to alter the rules for whatever benevolent purposes they may deem necessary (and which they may be able to persuade others are necessary). I challenge even your assertion that we know what will necessarily protect and best promote our investment, and that approach X will work while approach Y will not.

Now, maybe I've run into a self-contradiction here; in that I don't know whether benevolent anarchism will work; or whether there's any guarantee that it will work: can I really say it will work and a Social Contract won't?

No, I can't--but the difference is that benevolent anarchism admits this and, I'm concerned, a Social Contract . . . might try to hedge about that; to say "we are sure this set of rules will work."

No, we are not sure this will work.

But we do hope it will.

I do not like a proposed contract because I believe that in an absolutely free/frictionless commerce, if the majority happens to generally foster good will and make prudent decisions by the merits of their own instincts and conscience, the good majority will win, no matter what anyone with ill-will (or simply foolish will) may try to impose on them. Again, that's assuming or hoping that the majority generally favors what happens to be objectively good for everyone. If the majority picks otherwise, if the majority happens to be foolish or ill-willed, we're toast, and yes, that's chaotic/unruly anarchism. But if the majority makes poor choices, then there is not any system that can make it otherwise, period.

This is way too young and way too wild to say with any certainty what contracts will best predict a bright future and which contracts will not. I therefore propose the contract of maximal risk, because I want the potential maximal rewards of risking that others will do right by the community (really the world), which I hope and believe they will.

But I won't pretend that I could protect myself from people disappointing me, whatever set of rules I would impose in whatever circumstance--circmustances that can change so wildly that I may have a hard time recollecting next year why I wanted a certain set of now-discarded rules.

Consider this scenario (and this is one I've actually been ruminating on, and I would love to make this DAC); suppose somebody invents a DAC: "ID Squatter DAC," which somehow manages to be able to both generate and hide private keys from everyone, including itself, until some certain condition is met. And suppose that the private keys it hides happen to be for Keyhotee IDs which it automatically mined using GPUs, so that it mines ten thousand highly desirable IDs in a week, and then squats on those IDs, only dispensing the private keys for them, securely, to the highest bidders, such that the DAC itself can guarantee that it does not know the private keys and that only the highest bidder can know the keys (e.g. Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, famous Hollywood director X, famous politician Y). Moreover, ID Squatter DAC also does all this from its own blockchain which is independent of Protoshares, let's call it HorkedIDShares, and this independent blockchains shares operates similarly to the BitShares/BitBTC exchange; HorkedIDShares can be used as collateral investment in a seperate exchange blockchain, ProtoSquatter, which somehow finds a way to deprecate the value of ProtoShares unless people pay seriously high "registration" fees to ID Squatter DAC. Now we've got a market that completely disrupts the foundational assumption that nobody would want to bid on Keyhotee IDs, in the same way that (supposedly) nobody wants to bid on an email addresses. (We've also got a DAC that it would be very tempting to sell for a few billion dollars when evil parties realize how much power they could abuse with this DAC.) We have something monetized which we never imagined could or should be monetized.

Are we sure about our assumption that unique and desirable Keyhotee IDs could have no further value than the face value we assign to them based on our assumptions about how they will be used or function? Are we sure they can't be used in some very unexpected ways that might make them more highly valuable--and therefore purchaseable--than we might have thought?

Now, what do we do with the promise that we'd give Keyhotee Founders precedence in profits--when some weird bloke with his insance DAC came along and smashed our expectations to smithereens, by suddenly making a "killing" on something--free Keyhotee IDs--which he found a way to seriously exploit in ways we couldn't have guessed?

What do we do with our entire technological and investment infrastructure if market innovations prove to turn our foundational assumptions on their head?

What we do is found the whole enterprise on an implied contract which can be as drastically flexible as drastic unpredicatability may warrant: A Public Domain Dedication, or benevolent anarchy.

(And let the Founders figure out how to increase the value of their Founder ID proceeds which have been seriously devalued by ID Squatter DAC.)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 11, 2014, 09:19:15 pm
And you expect investors to be happy about this? do try explaining all this to someone who bought 5k PTS and bought 1k PTS worth of AGS. Most of what you speak of is ideological with no Business vector, we do not feed on ideas alone. This is a capitalist world and we intend to capitalize on our ideas.

Just who do you think is paying for the development kit you intend to use on said DAC you are ruminating on? As one of the guys helping out in that area i totally reject your ideas, we wanna get rich that's why wer are here, not some noble cause. I create a dev kit and am paid 10k PTS, who do you think paid the 10k? You expect that person to just giveaway that tool without trying to guarantee personal benefits from it?

Quote
Welcome to capitalist decentralization, the first fluid mix of capitalist and collective principles that encourages business but upholds privacy. Here we innovate and develop with global talent unrestricted in our creativity. We encourage those who wish to use our ideas and material to join and work with us for a better more decentralized future.


Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: earthbound on January 12, 2014, 01:37:55 am
Of course the answers to the rhetorical questions you ask are obvious. Also, the ideas I have presented are naturally outrageous in that they have probably never been tried. But that something has not been tried does not necessarily make it impractical. Nobody may ever know whether it's practical unless they try it.

My expectations about how people would respond to a Public Domain development kit are based on what I think my personal responses would be: I think I would be thunderstruck, and that it would win over my good will even more, and I would want to use the tools in the context which those who release it ask (yet do not demand). But my expected personal response isn't necessarily a predictor for how others would respond.

I do think the general guidelines bytemaster outlined in his OP would work very well, and I'll happily support whatever the community/Invictus decides is best.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 12, 2014, 06:24:00 am
Of course the answers to the rhetorical questions you ask are obvious. Also, the ideas I have presented are naturally outrageous in that they have probably never been tried. But that something has not been tried does not necessarily make it impractical. Nobody may ever know whether it's practical unless they try it.

My expectations about how people would respond to a Public Domain development kit are based on what I think my personal responses would be: I think I would be thunderstruck, and that it would win over my good will even more, and I would want to use the tools in the context which those who release it ask (yet do not demand). But my expected personal response isn't necessarily a predictor for how others would respond.

I do think the general guidelines bytemaster outlined in his OP would work very well, and I'll happily support whatever the community/Invictus decides is best.

The reason your argument is failing to truly engage me is you keep skirting past the Business concerns and elaborate so much on giving it out for free, reliance on good will and trying something new. Copyfarleft is new, well relatively.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 13, 2014, 06:34:15 am
So many people taking time to read the license, perhaps leave a comment here?

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 13, 2014, 09:07:21 pm
I think there is no need for a dispute between earthbound and barwizi when it comes to the intentions of the license.

1) Those the believe in copyright must abide by the SCSL or they cannot use our code.  The SCSL allows them to do ANYTHING but release a DAC that doesn't allocate shares to AGS and PTS holders.  This is a 0 restriction license other than the allocation.

2) Those that do not believe in copyright can do what ever they want including completely ignoring the AGS and PTS allocation. 
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 14, 2014, 01:14:45 am
Sorry for the delay getting this up. Also, I apologize for making my edits offline, it was simply easier for me to make the changes starting with a clean sheet of paper.  Barwiki, I used your draft as a starting point, fleshed out some of the concepts, and tried to polish the language.  The one issue that still needs to be addressed is the result of someone releasing a derivative DAC without honoring the social consensus.

This can be accessed by anyone with the link.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efD-6j2pGEech1o_rh24_wdj6fW71IemwSpqE0kErMw/edit?usp=sharing
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 14, 2014, 08:41:00 am
Sorry for the delay getting this up. Also, I apologize for making my edits offline, it was simply easier for me to make the changes starting with a clean sheet of paper.  Barwiki, I used your draft as a starting point, fleshed out some of the concepts, and tried to polish the language.  The one issue that still needs to be addressed is the result of someone releasing a derivative DAC without honoring the social consensus.

This can be accessed by anyone with the link.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efD-6j2pGEech1o_rh24_wdj6fW71IemwSpqE0kErMw/edit?usp=sharing


I do not have permission to comment on the doc, so i'll post the comments here for the time being, please allow me to comment so we can keep this thread clean. 

Quote
“Decentralized Autonomous Corporation”, may be abbreviated as “DAC”, and shall mean a decentralized software program that employs blockchain technology to perform a traditionally centralized business function.

This definition is limiting in nature, by stating block chain you have limited the apllications useable with DACs. We use but are not limited to the block chain tech, some DACs will use a ledger system similar to ripple and i am working on a Posax implementation (still conceptual). Perhaps you can change it to be less limiting, the technologies we employ are various.

Quote
“Supply” refers to the maximum number of transferable units of a DAC, including but not limited to: shares, coins, tokens, or other units of value generally recognized as representing a quantifiable stake in a DAC.

This statement may require re-wording unless we change the consensus, the word used in the concensus is "money supply" and i think keeping the terms of reference makes the linked documents coherent.

note to bytemaster---- the website calls it the Bitshares Social Concensus, lets get our terms of reference in order.


Quote
Social Consensus
 
The DAC shall, in the genesis block, allocate the Supply as follows:
           
           at least 10%, proportionally to the holders of Protoshares, and
           at least 10%, proportionally to the holders of Angelshares
           
The allocation of the remaining Supply shall be determined by the developer(s) of the DAC, but shall be specified prior to the genesis of the DAC.

This is only part of the consensus, the consensus has two clauses, one applicable to AGS funded DACs and another for third party DACs. You need to add the other clause.

I'm curious as to why in your licensing and restrictions you chose to model it after the Peer Production License. In my version I made a clear distinction between commons and non-commons use of the product to meet these requirements.

Quote
1) Preventing copycats that believe in intellectual property from using our code to launch derivative DACs that fail to honour our social consensus. (done)
2) Not preventing businesses from using any DAC that honours SCSL, even if they support IP... we don't want to restrict the use of DACs that follow the SCSL in any way shape or form. ( clearly stated in my non-commons section)
3) Preventing businesses that believe in intellectual property from using any DAC that doesn't honour the SCSL (done and covered)
4) Define the AngelShares social consensus in as clear and unambiguous terms as possible. (done)
5) Frees the developers of DACs from any liability resulting from the use of the code or failures in the code.(done)

I tried to limit the legalese to make it readable by anyone.

Quote
"Fog in the law and legal writing is often blamed on the complex topics being tackled. Yet when legal texts are closely examined, their complexity seems to arise far less from this than from unusual language, tortuous sentence construction, and disorder in the arrangement of points. So the complexity is largely linguistic and structural smoke created by poor writing practices."
(Martin Cutts, Oxford Guide to Plain English, 3rd ed. Oxford Univ. Press, 2009)

 
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 14, 2014, 10:00:33 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit#

in case the link is lost in the multitude of posts.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 14, 2014, 05:33:54 pm
Quote
"This definition is limiting in nature, by stating block chain you have limited the apllications useable with DACs. We use but are not limited to the block chain tech, some DACs will use a ledger system similar to ripple and i am working on a Posax implementation (still conceptual). Perhaps you can change it to be less limiting, the technologies we employ are various.
.

Agreed.  Let's make this more broad.

Quote
This statement may require re-wording unless we change the consensus, the word used in the concensus is "money supply" and i think keeping the terms of reference makes the linked documents coherent.

"money supply", just like "shares", are phrases that already have a lot of association in the financial/legal worlds.  I wanted to avoid confusion with existing concepts.  I do agree that consistent terminology across the consensus and the license is helpful.

Quote
note to bytemaster---- the website calls it the Bitshares Social Concensus, lets get our terms of reference in order.

Up to Daniel - I don't have a strong opinion either way. 

Quote
This is only part of the consensus, the consensus has two clauses, one applicable to AGS funded DACs and another for third party DACs. You need to add the other clause.

Third party DAC's wouldn't be using any code from Invictus and therefore wouldn't be bound by the license.  DAC's that do use their development kit are indirectly funded by AGS and should honor the consensus.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 14, 2014, 05:42:19 pm

Third party DAC's wouldn't be using any code from Invictus and therefore wouldn't be bound by the license.  DAC's that do use their development kit are indirectly funded by AGS and should honor the consensus.

The actual code is Invictus, by third party we mean to say that they are bot being financed or supported via AGS.

your licensing and restrictions you chose to not to separate commons and non-commons use of the product ergo you left out the key parts where we restrict those who subscribe to IP and wish to use the product without honouring the SCSL.

Seems you stripped out the important parts. I think it would be best if we worked off my document, jumping between the two will just take up time. you already have rights to comment and modify.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 14, 2014, 11:01:03 pm
Quote
The actual code is Invictus, by third party we mean to say that they are bot being financed or supported via AGS.

Dan, can we get some clarification on this point?

Quote
your licensing and restrictions you chose to not to separate commons and non-commons use of the product ergo you left out the key parts where we restrict those who subscribe to IP and wish to use the product without honouring the SCSL

I understand the philosophical argument here about believing and not believing in IP; however, in reality, this is almost impossible to enforce.  How do you know what I believe and don't believe? Even then, what if my belief changes? At the end of the day, a DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL doesn't get the license to use and modify the code.  At that point, you have a community of PTS and AGS holders that can be very vocal about DACs that steal the code and don't honor the consensus.


Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 14, 2014, 11:57:20 pm
Quote
The actual code is Invictus, by third party we mean to say that they are bot being financed or supported via AGS.

Dan, can we get some clarification on this point?

Quote
your licensing and restrictions you chose to not to separate commons and non-commons use of the product ergo you left out the key parts where we restrict those who subscribe to IP and wish to use the product without honouring the SCSL

I understand the philosophical argument here about believing and not believing in IP; however, in reality, this is almost impossible to enforce.  How do you know what I believe and don't believe? Even then, what if my belief changes? At the end of the day, a DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL doesn't get the license to use and modify the code.  At that point, you have a community of PTS and AGS holders that can be very vocal about DACs that steal the code and don't honor the consensus.

I understand the philosophical argument here about believing and not believing in IP; however, in reality, this is almost impossible to enforce.

Emphasis is placed on the two-way nature of the Consensus in that it is a community driven and community enforced.

Consider it a BY-SA-NC on use without honouring the consensus.

Please read the spec carefully, and the ensuing arguments from the beginning of the thread. This is a delicate situation in which we are trying to protect our investments while allowing public use. The purpose is to encourage people to bring ideas and resources to the community and work with us, not to just grab and use the code without honouring those who are making it happen. 

 
Quote
How do you know what I believe and don't believe? Even then, what if my belief changes? At the end of the day, a DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL doesn't get the license to use and modify the code.


If entity A subscribes to IP and is willing to honour the consensus they may use the code for profit. If entity B subscribes to IP but refuses the consensus and attempts to use the code commercially then they are in violation of the license. Entity A cannot use the derivation made by B as it is already in violation. all this must be made explicitly clear.

As for changing your mind, the Termination section deals with that.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 15, 2014, 12:46:55 am
Quote
If entity A subscribes to IP and is willing to honour the consensus they may use the code for profit. If entity B subscribes to IP but refuses the consensus and attempts to use the code commercially then they are in violation of the license. Entity A cannot use the derivation made by B as it is already in violation. all this must be made explicitly clear.

How do you determine whether someone "subscribes to IP"?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 15, 2014, 08:27:08 am
Quote
If entity A subscribes to IP and is willing to honour the consensus they may use the code for profit. If entity B subscribes to IP but refuses the consensus and attempts to use the code commercially then they are in violation of the license. Entity A cannot use the derivation made by B as it is already in violation. all this must be made explicitly clear.

How do you determine whether someone "subscribes to IP"?

I don't need to determine anything. I simply state the restrictions. A company that  supports copyRight is easily spotted by the supporting documentation and it's products. I do not see a copyLeft company having copyRight documentation or products.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 15, 2014, 05:17:40 pm
Bar, can you give me some examples of copyleft companies to go look at?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 15, 2014, 06:30:10 pm
some comments from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit

overall, 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.

Quote
© 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

Quote
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?

Quote
“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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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."

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 15, 2014, 07:20:59 pm
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 
Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 15, 2014, 08:56:51 pm
thanks for the response. My experience (non-professional) is in evaluating open source software licenses from a Debian point of view. I understand what you're doing - trying to do a document that does both software licensing and ecosystem licensing to protect investors.

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.

I see what you're trying to do, I just want to make sure it is prosecutable and defensible. There is no case law, that I know of, to do what you're trying to do - so prosecuting violators (suing) might be very expensive and difficult. My point is to work within existing legal frameworks rather than trying to carve out a new one, even copyleft licensing on its own hasn't been prosecuted much. You may claim you are unique, and you may be, but that makes the license much harder to do correctly.

Quote
lol, sure you don't want editing rights?
I believe modify source form includes editing.

Quote
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.[/quote]

It looks like the libraries are just pthreads, boost, ssl, qt - so you should be ok. I was warning future developers that would build off of protoshares that may want to use non-permissive libraries.


I've read many "homebrew" licenses before, and this reads like one. I fear this license is trying to do too much and not working within a standard licensing framework. I don't know barwizi background, he may be qualified for this, but for $20k you should get some silicon valley firm to write you a solid license that would be internationally enforceable. This is an extremely important job, probably not suitable for a bounty. No real lawyer will work for a bounty, and you won't be able to hire one to enforce a license by bounty either.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 15, 2014, 11:51:54 pm
maqifrnswa,  you have provided some excellent contributions to this topic.   And for clarification, we do have actual lawyers working on this bounty though barwizi is not one.

This is a Dual License and each individual may choose which license they would like to adopt:

A) Invictus Innovations is the original owner of all copyright granted by the law.  We grant unlimited and unrestricted usage rights for software and binaries compiled from our software or derivatives there of on the sole condition that at least 10% of the 'allocated shares' are allocated proportional to PTS holders and 10% allocated proportional to AGS holders.  We also grant anyone who holds AGS or PTS standing to prosecute violations of this license.   Owners of PTS and AGS are not free to change this license as all other rights are reserved to Invictus.

B) Invictus Innovations also grants unlimited and unrestricted usage rights for anyone who waives all rights to their own IP in any field.  Any derivative works must also be released under this license.  If the user of the resulting software claims any IP rights at all then they are granted NO right to even run the software.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 16, 2014, 04:31:36 am
maqifrnswa,  you have provided some excellent contributions to this topic.   And for clarification, we do have actual lawyers working on this bounty though barwizi is not one.

This is a Dual License and each individual may choose which license they would like to adopt:

A) Invictus Innovations is the original owner of all copyright granted by the law.  We grant unlimited and unrestricted usage rights for software and binaries compiled from our software or derivatives there of on the sole condition that at least 10% of the 'allocated shares' are allocated proportional to PTS holders and 10% allocated proportional to AGS holders.  We also grant anyone who holds AGS or PTS standing to prosecute violations of this license.   Owners of PTS and AGS are not free to change this license as all other rights are reserved to Invictus.

B) Invictus Innovations also grants unlimited and unrestricted usage rights for anyone who waives all rights to their own IP in any field.  Any derivative works must also be released under this license.  If the user of the resulting software claims any IP rights at all then they are granted NO right to even run the software.

that statement is actually very good, I haven't seen it anywhere else yet - it covers everything succinctly and clearly. The license is pretty much written there, just needs some tweaking (e.g., usage = modify, distribute, run). Beefing it up a bit and all.

I still need to think about (B), it seems like your trying to create a community that freely passes around code and makes no claim on IP (e.g., copyright) in exchange for not having to follow the 10%/10% PTS/AGS social consensus. I think that's the copyfarleft, you basically have a copyleft with the addition that no one (besides I3) can sell or re-license since those actions require copyright claims. Is that what you're going for? (this is just for my own understanding, I've been reading the thread but I'm a little fuzzy on it - my fault most likely!)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 16, 2014, 04:46:45 am
maqifrnswa,  you have provided some excellent contributions to this topic.   And for clarification, we do have actual lawyers working on this bounty though barwizi is not one.

This is a Dual License and each individual may choose which license they would like to adopt:

A) Invictus Innovations is the original owner of all copyright granted by the law.  We grant unlimited and unrestricted usage rights for software and binaries compiled from our software or derivatives there of on the sole condition that at least 10% of the 'allocated shares' are allocated proportional to PTS holders and 10% allocated proportional to AGS holders.  We also grant anyone who holds AGS or PTS standing to prosecute violations of this license.   Owners of PTS and AGS are not free to change this license as all other rights are reserved to Invictus.

B) Invictus Innovations also grants unlimited and unrestricted usage rights for anyone who waives all rights to their own IP in any field.  Any derivative works must also be released under this license.  If the user of the resulting software claims any IP rights at all then they are granted NO right to even run the software.

that statement is actually very good, I haven't seen it anywhere else yet - it covers everything succinctly and clearly. The license is pretty much written there, just needs some tweaking (e.g., usage = modify, distribute, run). Beefing it up a bit and all.

I still need to think about (B), it seems like your trying to create a community that freely passes around code and makes no claim on IP (e.g., copyright) in exchange for not having to follow the 10%/10% PTS/AGS social consensus. I think that's the copyfarleft, you basically have a copyleft with the addition that no one (besides I3) can sell or re-license since those actions require copyright claims. Is that what you're going for? (this is just for my own understanding, I've been reading the thread but I'm a little fuzzy on it - my fault most likely!)

I think you understand what I am going for.   Basically, if you believe in IP then Invictus has copyright and can enforce the 10%/10% rule, if you do not believe in IP then Invictus has NO copyright and thus you have no restrictions on what you can do.

The goal is to maintain my position that copyright is an illegitimate government granted monopoly and thus I only attempt to enforce copyright on those who consent to copyright laws by attempting to force copyright on others.   If I were to attempt to use copyright against non-aggressors (those who do not support copyright) then I would become an aggressor.  However, enforcing copyright against aggressors (those who support copyright) is merely self defense and based upon their own consent to be bound by those laws.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 16, 2014, 05:42:12 pm
new look doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 17, 2014, 04:54:57 pm
I think you understand what I am going for.   Basically, if you believe in IP then Invictus has copyright and can enforce the 10%/10% rule, if you do not believe in IP then Invictus has NO copyright and thus you have no restrictions on what you can do.

The goal is to maintain my position that copyright is an illegitimate government granted monopoly and thus I only attempt to enforce copyright on those who consent to copyright laws by attempting to force copyright on others.   If I were to attempt to use copyright against non-aggressors (those who do not support copyright) then I would become an aggressor.  However, enforcing copyright against aggressors (those who support copyright) is merely self defense and based upon their own consent to be bound by those laws.

I like your simple dual license approach. The easiest will be to modify existing, well known, licenses. Here are some examples:

License choice 1) "Copyright acknowledging" 3-clause BSD (http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause), with an additional clause:
Quote
4. Modifications must preserve the condition that at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally to PTS holders and at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally do AGS holders per the definitions below.

"digital assets" are defined as [need your lawyers to word this] and includes, for example, the total currency supply generated by the genesis block. [even this is bad because I can make a coin that has 50% allocation to PTS, 50% to AGS, but after 1 block both of those allocations are reduced to 1%. Do you want a limitation on % total final money supply? If you do that, no one can make a coin that has any inflation in it.]
"PTS holders" are defined as Protoshares addresses and their corresponding account value in the protoshares blockchain [lawyers, if there is a fork - which blockchain is the protoshares blockchain?] at a given point int time [what point in time?]
"AGS holders" are defined as the accounts and cumulative corresponding contributions that contributed as transaction inputs to the PTS and BTC donation addresses defined by I3 at a given point in time [what point in time?]

License choice 2) This is harder. A copyright is, by it's very definition, a government sanctioned monopoly and is supported by the courts. Since the law only cares about what's on the books and what has been established in cases. you'll have to try to find a way that does what you want it to do (allow those that don't prescribe to copyright to freely use the software) by using the language that would support them and you in court. It sounds like you want to give an unlimited license to people who freely use and give away their work with no claim to their own copyright (legally, even if they make no claim to the copyright, they still own the copyright even if they don't believe in it). You're basically saying, "I agree with you and promise not to sue you." I know you were against traditional copyleft licenses, but in practice, how are those different than what you are saying here? If i'm someone that doesn't care about copyright, I have no problem taking your code with the condition that I have to share everything I do - because I would have shared it anyways.
If i'm someone that wants to horde and sell my work, and sue others that violate my copyright, I would never choose this license and would have chosen choice 1 above.

I guess I'd like to know how, in practice, you'd like the proposed "License choice 2" to be used and enforced versus a traditional copyleft license.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 17, 2014, 05:16:06 pm
Traditional copy-left doesn't go far enough... but perhaps copy-far-left does. 

Perhaps another way to word Clause 2 is this.... you may use this work under the terms of a BSD-style license provided you license the copyright holders in this work all of your IP under this same license.

GPL is close, but ultimately prevents legitimate closed-source development and only applies to derivative works.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 17, 2014, 07:10:41 pm
Traditional copy-left doesn't go far enough... but perhaps copy-far-left does. 

Perhaps another way to word Clause 2 is this.... you may use this work under the terms of a BSD-style license provided you license the copyright holders in this work all of your IP under this same license.

GPL is close, but ultimately prevents legitimate closed-source development and only applies to derivative works.

Thanks for the response. I think you may want to separate the efforts into 2 distinct licenses that users can choose between instead of one license that tries to cover both at once. This way each one is optimized for its own intention.

Users/devs choose between:
License 1) a permissive license the enforces the social contract (for entities that claim copyright)
License 2) an extra strong copyleft license that does not enforce the social contract (for entities that do not claim copyright)

The first one, above, is pretty boilerplate. Take BSD and add a clause about the social contract (but asking for a 10%/10% PTS/AGS distribution in the genesis block is meaningless due to the point in my previous post). That license covers all 5 of the points you enumerated in the first post. If it was up to me, I would just license the software as License 1 and put all my effort into wording that extra clause to be exactly what I want.

I'm still struggling understanding your intentions with the second one and figuring out exactly what iI3, PTS/AGS holders, and 3rd party users/devs gain by choosing that license. I've read this whole thread and am trying to still trying to find the crux of what you're trying to do. If GPL is close to what you want, could you help out a bit explaining why it would not work? What "legitimate closed-source development" is prevented by GPL, and what do you mean by "only applies to derivative works?" If we can figure that out, then we can perhaps edit the GPL to match your intentions.

"legitimate closed-source development" seems to be at odds with "doesn't claim IP rights." You can't do closed-source development and not claim IP rights.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 17, 2014, 08:27:54 pm
take a look at the current version
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 17, 2014, 09:02:57 pm
take a look at the current version

it's much better.

Quote
Notwithstanding the above, if you make no claim to own intellectual property, with respect to an Alternative DAC or otherwise, you shall have the right to use, modify and distribute the Product without adhering to the Social Consensus.
Maybe just say, "Notwithstanding the above, if you make no claim to own intellectual property, with respect to an Alternative DAC or otherwise, you shall have the right to use, modify and distribute the Product without limitation."

I'm still a little uneasy as to what "if you make no claim to own intellectual property" means, legally. If I take proprietary code that was licensed with the social contract, I make no claim to own the IP, am I now free to remove the social consensus? This is what I mean by creating two separate and optimized licenses rather than one muddy one. I'd suggest taking that paragraph out and write a second license for a true dual-license model. I still think it's best to not muddy the permissive license with that paragraph, because it will make it confusing to untangle what entities are operating under which part of the license.

Quote
the Alternative DAC shall allocate at least 10% of the Money Supply, proportionally to the holders of PTS, and at least 10% of the Money Supply, proportionally to the holders of AGS (the “Social Consensus”); and
I just want to make sure this really what you want - this term prevents indefinite generation of coins or inflationary DACs, it might be limiting to some innovations.

You'll also need to figure out how to tighten up the definition of a PTS and AGS holder (see my previous post). For example, I can make an Alternative DAC which only honors AGS holders on Jan 1 and PTS holders on Dec 15th because those are the days I first committed that section of my code. How close to release must that be updated again, or is that acceptable?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 17, 2014, 10:52:25 pm
Quote
Thanks for the response. I think you may want to separate the efforts into 2 distinct licenses that users can choose between instead of one license that tries to cover both at once. This way each one is optimized for its own intention.

Users/devs choose between:
License 1) a permissive license the enforces the social contract (for entities that claim copyright)
License 2) an extra strong copyleft license that does not enforce the social contract (for entities that do not claim copyright)

The first one, above, is pretty boilerplate. Take BSD and add a clause about the social contract (but asking for a 10%/10% PTS/AGS distribution in the genesis block is meaningless due to the point in my previous post). That license covers all 5 of the points you enumerated in the first post. If it was up to me, I would just license the software as License 1 and put all my effort into wording that extra clause to be exactly what I want.

I'm in agreement here.  A two-license approach would be easier to digest.

Quote
I just want to make sure this really what you want - this term prevents indefinite generation of coins or inflationary DACs, it might be limiting to some innovations.

Agreed. The only solution I can think of is to set a minimum number of digital assets; maybe 1:1 mapping is the minimum, and developers can increase the supply to their liking.

Quote
You'll also need to figure out how to tighten up the definition of a PTS and AGS holder (see my previous post). For example, I can make an Alternative DAC which only honors AGS holders on Jan 1 and PTS holders on Dec 15th because those are the days I first committed that section of my code. How close to release must that be updated again, or is that acceptable?

Agreed.  I'm a little fuzzy on the mechanics of how these "allocations" to PTS and AGS holders are locked into the chain, but I see a potential problem: assuming AGS are transferable, if the allocation is tied to holders on a particular date, holders looking to take advantage of the system will simply acquire AGS on that date, hold, and sell the following day.  This circumvents the idea behind AGS.

Quote
"digital assets" are defined as [need your lawyers to word this] and includes, for example, the total currency supply generated by the genesis block. [even this is bad because I can make a coin that has 50% allocation to PTS, 50% to AGS, but after 1 block both of those allocations are reduced to 1%. Do you want a limitation on % total final money supply? If you do that, no one can make a coin that has any inflation in it.]
"PTS holders" are defined as Protoshares addresses and their corresponding account value in the protoshares blockchain [lawyers, if there is a fork - which blockchain is the protoshares blockchain?] at a given point int time [what point in time?]
"AGS holders" are defined as the accounts and cumulative corresponding contributions that contributed as transaction inputs to the PTS and BTC donation addresses defined by I3 at a given point in time [what point in time?]

I'll noodle on these.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 18, 2014, 12:01:54 am
Quote
"legitimate closed-source development" seems to be at odds with "doesn't claim IP rights." You can't do closed-source development and not claim IP rights.

This is called trade secret. 

I do not believe in copyright personally and thus want to be consistent in my licensing approach.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: btclawyer on January 18, 2014, 12:22:24 am
Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 18, 2014, 01:06:48 am
Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?

that is one of the issues i wanted to bring up. Unless it is absolutely necesarry i believe the current approach is best. A single license that stipulates the rights accorded to the two groups is a cleaner and enforceable solution. I've heard of a product having two licenses but it sounds messy,especially considering the stipulations. Perhaps Single Vendor Commercial Open Source option can offer some ideas. i'll ruminate the idea
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 18, 2014, 01:38:05 am
License 2) an extra strong copyleft license that does not enforce the social contract (for entities that do not claim copyright)

If the entity does not claim copyright what is the point of having a license at all? And if they do claim copyright that is why they should read License 1.

So I don't see any reason why we should have more than 1 License for all. If you don't believe in copyright then don't read the license because it's legalese gibberish but if you do believe in that then read and follow the law.

Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?

that is one of the issues i wanted to bring up. Unless it is absolutely necesarry i believe the current approach is best. A single license that stipulates the rights accorded to the two groups is a cleaner and enforceable solution. I've heard of a product having two licenses but it sounds messy,especially considering the stipulations. Perhaps Single Vendor Commercial Open Source option can offer some ideas. i'll ruminate the idea

I agree. There is no reason why more than one license should exist. Having more than one makes it unnecessary and complicated. No one is going to read a license if they don't believe in copyright. Do "pirates" read the FBI warning?

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 18, 2014, 05:09:54 am
These are my non-professional opinions, take them or leave them. This is just based on lots of open source software licensing experience from a distribution point of view. If it helps, great - if not - that's great too.

Quote
"legitimate closed-source development" seems to be at odds with "doesn't claim IP rights." You can't do closed-source development and not claim IP rights.

This is called trade secret. 

I do not believe in copyright personally and thus want to be consistent in my licensing approach.

so you're ok with people taking the protoshares code and removing the social consensus as long as they keep it trade secret? That seems like the worst of both worlds. If I was a company, i'd spin-off an LLC that forks code, makes changes and keeps the changes trade secret without giving anything back to the community, and I'd be protected by your license.

If the entity does not claim copyright what is the point of having a license at all? And if they do claim copyright that is why they should read License 1.
Because even if they don't follow copyright, the courts of their jurisdiction do. The parenthesis was for our own clarification, that would not actually show up in the license because courts don't care if you don't follow copyright. Therefore, we need something that will do what I3 wants but using language courts would uphold. The strong copyleft was just there to ensure that third parties would be forced to disclose code/cease usage if they turned hostile.

Quote
So I don't see any reason why we should have more than 1 License for all. If you don't believe in copyright then don't read the license because it's legalese gibberish but if you do believe in that then read and follow the law.
Because you're trying to do two separate things, the licenses and terms you are granting are different. I don't see a reason why there should be only one document if there are clearly two different modes of operation, and you are only operating in one of those two modes at a given time. This allows you to properly write documents that clearly lay out the terms of each of the modes without worrying about simultaneously considering the other mode. It could be one document, but there should be a very clear break between the two "OR" sections. The two-license approach is best used if you let users choose between two well known licenses (what I was trying to find a way to do). But if you're writing your own, then it doesn't matter. Just don't try to do both at the same time - write two clearly distinct sections so there isn't any possible bleedover of rights from one to the other.

Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?
You don't need to know which one they are operating under the same way you don't need to know which option they choose if it is a single document. I was wrong in bringing up that have a single document makes it harder to know which mode you are in. But if you have a single document, how do you know which terms the user accepted?

Quote
Quote
that is one of the issues i wanted to bring up. Unless it is absolutely necesarry i believe the current approach is best. A single license that stipulates the rights accorded to the two groups is a cleaner and enforceable solution. I've heard of a product having two licenses but it sounds messy,especially considering the stipulations. Perhaps Single Vendor Commercial Open Source option can offer some ideas. i'll ruminate the idea

I agree. There is no reason why more than one license should exist. Having more than one makes it unnecessary and complicated. No one is going to read a license if they don't believe in copyright. Do "pirates" read the FBI warning?

Pirates read the FBI warning, don't believe it is valid, and end up getting fined or jail time. You are already making more than one license, you already have two license modes that you are trying to smash together as one. It's much less complicated to have to clear distinct modes rather than trying to decipher a single document that covers two cases simultaneously.

The two license solution works best if they are well known licenses, or close derivatives of well known licences (e.g., adding a clause to BSD-3 or modifying GPL). If you do that, it is cleaner to have two separate licenses. But you're right, if you custom write your own license it doesn't matter what you do as long as it is clear that there are two modes of operation and the user has to choose between those two licenses.

In the end, my opinion is non-professional. I think the language of the license should not be written by non-professionals. We can come up with a guidance document, but the actual language should be written by a lawyer. That's why when people ask how they should write their own license, the answer universally is "don't, use an existing one or find a lawyer."
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 18, 2014, 02:53:20 pm

so you're ok with people taking the protoshares code and removing the social consensus as long as they keep it trade secret? That seems like the worst of both worlds. If I was a company, i'd spin-off an LLC that forks code, makes changes and keeps the changes trade secret without giving anything back to the community, and I'd be protected by your license.

the license should be left in and intact. taking the code means you accept the license terms so if you allocate the required % to PTS holders then all is well, you are not obligated to tell us the key changes that made your product unique. But if you are well versed with this community you'll see that the majority of us do not touch products whose source we cannot review.


Quote
Because even if they don't follow copyright, the courts of their jurisdiction do. The parenthesis was for our own clarification, that would not actually show up in the license because courts don't care if you don't follow copyright. Therefore, we need something that will do what I3 wants but using language courts would uphold. The strong copyleft was just there to ensure that third parties would be forced to disclose code/cease usage if they turned hostile.

Unless there is a world government, jurisdiction is not something we can control. We simply put terms that we see applicable in most jurisdictions. It's counter productive to start looking at individual jurisdictions. even governments know there is a limit to enforcement, kinda why tax havens exist and little can be done. One thing this license should not become is a hodge-podge of technical law, it becomes too complicated for the average person to understand.

Quote
Because you're trying to do two separate things, the licenses and terms you are granting are different. I don't see a reason why there should be only one document if there are clearly two different modes of operation, and you are only operating in one of those two modes at a given time. This allows you to properly write documents that clearly lay out the terms of each of the modes without worrying about simultaneously considering the other mode. It could be one document, but there should be a very clear break between the two "OR" sections. The two-license approach is best used if you let users choose between two well known licenses (what I was trying to find a way to do). But if you're writing your own, then it doesn't matter. Just don't try to do both at the same time - write two clearly distinct sections so there isn't any possible bleedover of rights from one to the other.

I can just say that it is one thing, we are trying to make it difficulty for IP entities to operate this code for profit.

Quote
You don't need to know which one they are operating under the same way you don't need to know which option they choose if it is a single document. I was wrong in bringing up that have a single document makes it harder to know which mode you are in. But if you have a single document, how do you know which terms the user accepted?

We know because it will be clear as day if they have honoured the license at the very first block. Public release means you have honoured it anyway.

Quote
Pirates read the FBI warning, don't believe it is valid, and end up getting fined or jail time. You are already making more than one license, you already have two license modes that you are trying to smash together as one. It's much less complicated to have to clear distinct modes rather than trying to decipher a single document that covers two cases simultaneously.

The two license solution works best if they are well known licenses, or close derivatives of well known licences (e.g., adding a clause to BSD-3 or modifying GPL). If you do that, it is cleaner to have two separate licenses. But you're right, if you custom write your own license it doesn't matter what you do as long as it is clear that there are two modes of operation and the user has to choose between those two licenses.

In the end, my opinion is non-professional. I think the language of the license should not be written by non-professionals. We can come up with a guidance document, but the actual language should be written by a lawyer. That's why when people ask how they should write their own license, the answer universally is "don't, use an existing one or find a lawyer."

The very structure you were against in the beginning is the one you are stating now. I had put a Commons and non-commons section, make it infinitely easy for a person to pick one.

lol, you cant modify the GPL.

As i said initially, this is a unique situation and requires a unique solution. attempted hack jobs just will not cut it.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: earthbound on January 19, 2014, 01:23:59 am
I think there is no need for a dispute between earthbound and barwizi when it comes to the intentions of the license.

1) Those the believe in copyright must abide by the SCSL or they cannot use our code.  The SCSL allows them to do ANYTHING but release a DAC that doesn't allocate shares to AGS and PTS holders.  This is a 0 restriction license other than the allocation.

2) Those that do not believe in copyright can do what ever they want including completely ignoring the AGS and PTS allocation.

In any case, it's become very apparent to me that many-a-programmer will willfully ignore the wishes of others, besides (onlookers: see my aside in my last sentence of this post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2313.msg27945#msg27945 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2313.msg27945#msg27945) )

As for expecting that such willful ignorance will probably take place (if I read you correctly, and if I also missed before that this is your expectation), well, that may be rather novel, and I like it :)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: earthbound on January 19, 2014, 02:09:40 am
Quote
The actual code is Invictus, by third party we mean to say that they are bot being financed or supported via AGS.

Dan, can we get some clarification on this point?

Quote
your licensing and restrictions you chose to not to separate commons and non-commons use of the product ergo you left out the key parts where we restrict those who subscribe to IP and wish to use the product without honouring the SCSL

I understand the philosophical argument here about believing and not believing in IP; however, in reality, this is almost impossible to enforce.  How do you know what I believe and don't believe? Even then, what if my belief changes? At the end of the day, a DAC that doesn't honor the SCSL doesn't get the license to use and modify the code.  At that point, you have a community of PTS and AGS holders that can be very vocal about DACs that steal the code and don't honor the consensus.

It's very possible I misunderstand (it's been known to happen ;)) so I will write all of the following under the assumption that I do misunderstand. Which, actually, may be the assumption y'all would want to make, also, because if I misunderstand it in the following way, maybe this illuminates a risk that others misunderstand it in this way, also.

So, again, please assume that I misunderstand, and consider: for me, discussion in a legal document of questions about the status quo of law, and whether any given set of beliefs supports that status quo or not--this rings loud alarm bells of anarchism (which, after all, is quite frowned upon, oh, say . . . in courts of law. Yes, I realize how ironic it is for me to say this, in light of the fact that others have cited my writing in this thread as sounding deeply anarchist). For me, it shouts: "Anarchy! Anarchy! We may have qualms with the entire status quo conception of law--so that we might not uphold the law!" Yoink! How scary might a license document be (and how untenable and unenforceable) if it bears any potential shades of lawlessness in it?

To further play out this "what if?" -- if any court of public opinion forms around the license (and against it) which derive from any misunderstandings similar to mine, that may run the risk of making other substantial (and potentially enforceable) questions about the document harder to ask. I fear it would undermine the credibility of the whole document in any setting wherein it may eventually become desirable to wield said document as real, verifiable, and powerful legal weaponry. I suggest we want to lend every possible strength of precedent, credibility and enforceability which it is possible to lend to the document--and I therefore propose omitting any philosophical discussions (from the document) about who believes what about law. I suggest it may be most desirable to couch all the language and assumptions in the most strictly lawful (and perhaps even conservative businessman-type) language that it can afford (obviously, while avoiding undue complexity and also lending it as much immediate clarity and enforceability as possible).

The following may be an aside, but as possibly supporting case precedent: I've read about folks who refused to register for Social Security Numbers under the auspices that their religious beliefs forbid them to do so. I'm sorry to say this is only anecdotal (and I wager some here might more easily find the references than I, or know more of what I speak), but my recollection is that it didn't hold up in the end . . . I think they were compelled to obtain SSNs. (And aren't SSNs an essential mechanism for the IRS to ensure it gets its lawful tax cut in all the settings where the law supports it?)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 19, 2014, 02:27:24 am
I agree with earthbound in respect that we want this license to be enforceable under the law.

BSD + AGS/PTS clause may be sufficient for that.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 05:43:31 am
I agree with earthbound in respect that we want this license to be enforceable under the law.

BSD + AGS/PTS clause may be sufficient for that.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJoHfPO3lCV5pSVoHiZ2s3sp6yUUkVDSkul15A4dWPY/edit?usp=sharing

PDF with Bitshares document theme https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCtiOzdwvPydTRQUF9xWlNMWXM/edit?usp=sharing
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 19, 2014, 05:56:58 am
Quote
All modified redistributions shall allocate at least 10 % of the total value supply units to PTS holders ie holders of the original at genesis. All AngelShares sponsored redistributions shall allocate a further 10% of the total value supply to AngelShares. The remaining Value supply is allocated at redistributor’s discretion.   

Aside from the spelling errors, lack of definition of AngelShares or PTS in a legally enforceable way?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 06:09:38 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJoHfPO3lCV5pSVoHiZ2s3sp6yUUkVDSkul15A4dWPY/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone that wants to chip in can just give me their mail address.

Aside from the spelling errors, lack of definition of AngelShares or PTS in a legally enforceable way?

I've defined them, and value supply.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 19, 2014, 04:57:23 pm
Thank you, earthbound, for articulating the point I've been clumsy getting to. My whole point was that the license was getting unwieldy and unenforceable . Using standard licenses should be preferred.

Quote
All modified redistributions shall allocate at least 10 % of the total value supply units to PTS holders ie holders of the original at genesis. All AngelShares sponsored redistributions shall allocate a further 10% of the total value supply to AngelShares. The remaining Value supply is allocated at redistributor’s discretion.   

Aside from the spelling errors, lack of definition of AngelShares or PTS in a legally enforceable way?

How about:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1708.msg29542#msg29542

The 4th clause and definition are there, slight modification below.
Quote
4. Modifications must preserve the condition that at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally to PTS holders and at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally do AGS holders per the definitions below.

"digital assets" are defined as exchangeable units derived from the Product and includes, for example, the total currency supply generated by the genesis block.
"PTS holders" are defined as Protoshares addresses and their corresponding account value in the protoshares blockchain [bytemaster, if there is a fork - which blockchain is the protoshares blockchain?] at a given point in time [bytemaster, what point in time?]
"AGS holders" are defined as the accounts and cumulative corresponding contributions that contributed as transaction inputs to the PTS and BTC donation addresses defined by I3 at a given point in time [bytemaster, what point in time?]

Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 05:24:39 pm
Quote
Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.

I do not think you understand how this works exactly. Let me put it this way, the consensus states you allocate 10% with a 1:1 mapping, ergo your DAC needs to take into account how many PTS are in existence. SO if there are 100 PTS total in existence, your dac may have a max of 1000 units distributable. That is to say, the 10% is that of ultimate supply based on current existing PTS. You place these in the genesis block allocated to each holding address,  the inclusion is at genesis as it is simpler and easily verifiable.


The chain is based off the current amount of existing PTS with the stipulation of mapping 1:1, as a result it is in violation of license to try scale down the chain.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 05:37:29 pm
The 4th clause and definition are there, slight modification below.
Quote
4. Modifications must preserve the condition that at least 10% of initially allocated total digital assets are assigned proportionally with a 1:1 mapping to PTS holders  and at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally to AGS holders.

"digital assets" are defined as exchangeable units derived from the Product and includes, for example, the total currency supply generated by the genesis block.
"PTS holders" are defined as Protoshares addresses and their corresponding account value in the protoshares blockchain at time of genesis initialization
"AGS holders" are defined as the accounts and cumulative corresponding contributions that contributed as transaction inputs to the PTS and BTC donation addresses defined by I3 at a given point in time

this definition reads awkwardly, my attempts to modify have fallen flat. i modified the clause a bit, but not so sure digital assets does quite as well as the one i put in pace. your definition refers to exchangeable units whereas mine refers to them as stake, seems appropriate.

comments?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 19, 2014, 05:47:07 pm
I like "stake" that you used, but I'm not a lawyer and would like to see their opinion.

Quote
Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.

I do not think you understand how this works exactly. Let me put it this way, the consensus states you allocate 10% with a 1:1 mapping, ergo your DAC needs to take into account how many PTS are in existence. SO if there are 100 PTS total in existence, your dac may have a max of 1000 units distributable. That is to say, the 10% is that of ultimate supply based on current existing PTS. You place these in the genesis block allocated to each holding address,  the inclusion is at genesis as it is simpler and easily verifiable.


The chain is based off the current amount of existing PTS with the stipulation of mapping 1:1, as a result it is in violation of license to try scale down the chain.

I understand it. In fact, you just exactly described what I called "final money supply" limits.

My question is: do we want "final money supply limits" or "genesis block limits." If you follow what you wrote (i.e., "final money supply limits"), you cannot have an inflationary coin. If you follow "genesis block limits," you don't have social consensus.

Also, 1:1 mapping isn't necessary as long as you use percentages. We should not add extra limits for no reason.
Here's why 1:1 mapping is an extra unneeded constraint. 100 pts are in existence.
A DAC offers 2:1 mapping. their final money supply is 500, they give 50 to PTS holders. This follows the social consensus but is prohibited by the license.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 06:20:11 pm
I like "stake" that you used, but I'm not a lawyer and would like to see their opinion.

Quote
Could we get clarification that you want the social consensus to solely be the genesis block or final money supply? Both have problems. Final money supply is probably preferred but will prevent any coin from having inflation. If it is the genesis block, you might as well have no social consensus at all in the license and go with a simple 3 clause BSD since anyone can follow the license and create a chain with a tiny genesis block.

I do not think you understand how this works exactly. Let me put it this way, the consensus states you allocate 10% with a 1:1 mapping, ergo your DAC needs to take into account how many PTS are in existence. SO if there are 100 PTS total in existence, your dac may have a max of 1000 units distributable. That is to say, the 10% is that of ultimate supply based on current existing PTS. You place these in the genesis block allocated to each holding address,  the inclusion is at genesis as it is simpler and easily verifiable.


The chain is based off the current amount of existing PTS with the stipulation of mapping 1:1, as a result it is in violation of license to try scale down the chain.

I understand it. In fact, you just exactly described what I called "final money supply" limits.

My question is: do we want "final money supply limits" or "genesis block limits." If you follow what you wrote (i.e., "final money supply limits"), you cannot have an inflationary coin. If you follow "genesis block limits," you don't have social consensus.

Also, 1:1 mapping isn't necessary as long as you use percentages. We should not add extra limits for no reason.
Here's why 1:1 mapping is an extra unneeded constraint. 100 pts are in existence.
A DAC offers 2:1 mapping. their final money supply is 500, they give 50 to PTS holders. This follows the social consensus but is prohibited by the license.

 :) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 19, 2014, 07:28:48 pm
:) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.

I'm not debating anything, I'm just trying to point out what the license actually says and am asking if that is what the intention is. If we put in that 10% of the genesis block must be at least PTS and 10% must be AGS, we are in fact eliminating the social consensus.
Example:
I take the pts code and change it so that the genesis block gives 1 new DAC asset to every PTS holder and the correct proportion to AGS holders. 50/50. My very next block mines 100billion coins which I give to myself. I followed the license, and the license's description of social consensus, but in fact destroyed it. If that is possible, then just license it BSD and don't worry about this extra restriction anyone can get around. Of course, proof of stake blockchains wouldn't do this, but there is nothing preventing someone from implementing a proof of work blockchain that does an end around any genesis-block based social consensus language

Inflationary coins: it doesn't matter what bytemaster or I think, only what is written in the license. If I3 wants to kill off all inflationary coins forever, then put the "final money supply" description in the license. That's fine, but the decision must be made to do that (that's all I'm asking for, is this I3's intentions or not). I don't understand why reading what bytemaster's opinion of those coins has any bearing on this document unless I3 decides it should be in it. My opinion is to not restrict freedom, and even though I think inflationary coins could be a poor economic model, if someone want to do it they should be free to do it. However, social consensus would need to be redefined for that case if I3 wants to do that.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 07:46:19 pm
There are now two versions in play. i would like us to consider the effectiveness of each and how it stands with regard top the future. Protoshares is the current basis of DACs but this may not hold for much longer than the next two months.

I think the license should be one copyable to any code base that is brought under the DAC flag and used in the DAC community, not just specific to PTS.

This would mean the consensus would be more like "all chains will give 10% to the original and 10% to a sponsoring fund" (that is if others are successful enough to be able to have funds)

This makes it a general DAC license and means us devs wont have to structure a license for every code base we bring into the fold. If one so wishes, even using an all new code base they could honour PTS and there by ensure that all forks will indirectly honour PTS holders.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 19, 2014, 07:53:48 pm
:) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.

I'm not debating anything, I'm just trying to point out what the license actually says and am asking if that is what the intention is. If we put in that 10% of the genesis block must be at least PTS and 10% must be AGS, we are in fact eliminating the social consensus.
Example:
I take the pts code and change it so that the genesis block gives 1 new DAC asset to every PTS holder and the correct proportion to AGS holders. 50/50. My very next block mines 100billion coins which I give to myself. I followed the license, and the license's description of social consensus, but in fact destroyed it. If that is possible, then just license it BSD and don't worry about this extra restriction anyone can get around. Of course, proof of stake blockchains wouldn't do this, but there is nothing preventing someone from implementing a proof of work blockchain that does an end around any genesis-block based social consensus language

Inflationary coins: it doesn't matter what bytemaster or I think, only what is written in the license. If I3 wants to kill off all inflationary coins forever, then put the "final money supply" description in the license. That's fine, but the decision must be made to do that (that's all I'm asking for, is this I3's intentions or not). I don't understand why reading what bytemaster's opinion of those coins has any bearing on this document unless I3 decides it should be in it. My opinion is to not restrict freedom, and even though I think inflationary coins could be a poor economic model, if someone want to do it they should be free to do it. However, social consensus would need to be redefined for that case if I3 wants to do that.

OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: Stan on January 19, 2014, 08:16:35 pm
:) i'm not debating the consensus, that is for bytemaster and company to work out. As for inflationary coins, you may want to read bytemaster's opinions and ideas on that. For now PTS is the code people will fork, but i am working on a version with stake, relative reward and lots more. it will be another version people can use for code and will have a similar license.

I'm not debating anything, I'm just trying to point out what the license actually says and am asking if that is what the intention is. If we put in that 10% of the genesis block must be at least PTS and 10% must be AGS, we are in fact eliminating the social consensus.
Example:
I take the pts code and change it so that the genesis block gives 1 new DAC asset to every PTS holder and the correct proportion to AGS holders. 50/50. My very next block mines 100billion coins which I give to myself. I followed the license, and the license's description of social consensus, but in fact destroyed it. If that is possible, then just license it BSD and don't worry about this extra restriction anyone can get around. Of course, proof of stake blockchains wouldn't do this, but there is nothing preventing someone from implementing a proof of work blockchain that does an end around any genesis-block based social consensus language

Inflationary coins: it doesn't matter what bytemaster or I think, only what is written in the license. If I3 wants to kill off all inflationary coins forever, then put the "final money supply" description in the license. That's fine, but the decision must be made to do that (that's all I'm asking for, is this I3's intentions or not). I don't understand why reading what bytemaster's opinion of those coins has any bearing on this document unless I3 decides it should be in it. My opinion is to not restrict freedom, and even though I think inflationary coins could be a poor economic model, if someone want to do it they should be free to do it. However, social consensus would need to be redefined for that case if I3 wants to do that.

OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.

As our current consensus is stated on our old web site:

Quote
The 10% requirement is a minimum, since any number greater than that also satisfies the consensus.  The 1:1 mapping and 10% minimum together set an upper limit on the number of shares a DAC may allocate.  If only 1.5M PTS exist at DAC release, then 15M is the derived upper limit to number of shares for that DAC.  Developers may equivalently exercise the right to scale the share count to the needs of each DAC while preserving percentages for all stakeholders.

1:1 mapping can be in actual shares or equivalently 1:1 in percentages of the total lifetime supply.
So the term 1:1 could be replaced by simply "preserve percentages" and mean the same thing. Perhaps this would be the better way to say it.

I suppose this technically allows inflation as long as nobody's percentage of the money supply changes.   :)

Anything that dilutes holders of PTS and AGS to below 10% would seem to be an obvious violation of the whole spirit of the consensus.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 20, 2014, 04:15:42 pm
OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.

(again, i'm not trying to be difficult, just pointing out language and how it can be interpreted. I'm not arguing the merits of the social consensus, I'm trying to craft language which actually enforces social consensus without weird loopholes. I know what it is, I know how this is supposed to work, I know how the community works - I'm putting on my "red team" hat as a hostile business or developer looking for exploits)

So the important thing is the 10% of total value supply, not the 1:1 mapping. If that is true, as Stan suggested, we shouldn't use the 1:1 mapping term since it is ambiguous. Even though my example is in violation of the spirit of the consensus (again, I know what the consensus is - I'm trying to break it on purpose), it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts. Ambiguity in licenses, in general, gets to the interpreted by the party that did not write the license. I would say, where did the whole "I'm limited to 20 million shares" thing come from, that's not in the license - the license just says I have to give one DAC share for each PTS share.

It's important that the license stands on its own, and not through the filter of prior knowledge and interpretation of what the community thinks social consensus is. All that matters is what is written in the license. I'm just trying to make sure what's written in the license reflects the intentions of the community and can't be exploited.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on January 20, 2014, 04:23:17 pm
OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.

(again, i'm not trying to be difficult, just pointing out language and how it can be interpreted. I'm not arguing the merits of the social consensus, I'm trying to craft language which actually enforces social consensus without weird loopholes. I know what it is, I know how this is supposed to work, I know how the community works - I'm putting on my "red team" hat as a hostile business or developer looking for exploits)

So the important thing is the 10% of total value supply, not the 1:1 mapping. If that is true, as Stan suggested, we shouldn't use the 1:1 mapping term since it is ambiguous. Even though my example is in violation of the spirit of the consensus (again, I know what the consensus is - I'm trying to break it on purpose), it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts. Ambiguity in licenses, in general, gets to the interpreted by the party that did not write the license. I would say, where did the whole "I'm limited to 20 million shares" thing come from, that's not in the license - the license just says I have to give one DAC share for each PTS share.

It's important that the license stands on its own, and not through the filter of prior knowledge and interpretation of what the community thinks social consensus is. All that matters is what is written in the license. I'm just trying to make sure what's written in the license reflects the intentions of the community and can't be exploited.

Great contributions!   I agree 100%.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 20, 2014, 04:45:31 pm
OK, PTS has a max of 2 mill so every DAC forked from it can have a max of 20 miliion units. that is the maximum, no inflation nothing but a theoretical max of 20 million. so you cannot have your billion value block because it is in violation of the consensus, which clearly states that with a 1:1 mapping PTS should account for at least 10% of the total value supply.

The very calculations for your DAC are based on PTS so any use that does not follow that is in violation of the license.

(again, i'm not trying to be difficult, just pointing out language and how it can be interpreted. I'm not arguing the merits of the social consensus, I'm trying to craft language which actually enforces social consensus without weird loopholes. I know what it is, I know how this is supposed to work, I know how the community works - I'm putting on my "red team" hat as a hostile business or developer looking for exploits)

So the important thing is the 10% of total value supply, not the 1:1 mapping. If that is true, as Stan suggested, we shouldn't use the 1:1 mapping term since it is ambiguous. Even though my example is in violation of the spirit of the consensus (again, I know what the consensus is - I'm trying to break it on purpose), it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts. Ambiguity in licenses, in general, gets to the interpreted by the party that did not write the license. I would say, where did the whole "I'm limited to 20 million shares" thing come from, that's not in the license - the license just says I have to give one DAC share for each PTS share.

It's important that the license stands on its own, and not through the filter of prior knowledge and interpretation of what the community thinks social consensus is. All that matters is what is written in the license. I'm just trying to make sure what's written in the license reflects the intentions of the community and can't be exploited.

lol, i know you are tring to help, just failing to see how it could be misunderstood or misinterpreted, maybe i'm just too used to thinking of it that way. fresh yes and ideas are always needed.

Quote
it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts.
it was, remember the 1:1 mapping is equivalent to 10%, or was until it changed.

if we use the 10% perhaps we may want to add a stipulation that the cap cannot be raised later on even if it gets a new dev maintaining it.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 20, 2014, 04:58:40 pm
so, bit assets or value supply?  That is a very important part of the license as it defines what it is exactly we want a % of.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 20, 2014, 06:22:25 pm
I have some questions and concerns. The code has been out for a while, so many forks in existence, all released under the MIT license. If a dev wants to get around the consensus they can easily use one of them. For example, the two on my git do not have a license and should we put this on PTS code it will only affect those who fork after the fact. Once this gains interest, more people will want to fork, and word will spread that there are versions without this license but under the MIT one. The wording of that license allows them to completely circumvent this one.

How do we deal with this?

Also i note that the license we are currently mulling on has lack of protection for a typical user in a situation where a dev abides the license in the beginning and decides to violate it later on after maybe seeing profits. The typical user includes some who would have claimed their share of the DAC via PTS and this license is meant to protect all PTS holders through and since we are claiming a portion "carry-over" in all modified versions we need to structure controls for such eventualities.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: Stan on January 20, 2014, 07:03:34 pm
I have some questions and concerns. The code has been out for a while, so many forks in existence, all released under the MIT license. If a dev wants to get around the consensus they can easily use one of them. For example, the two on my git do not have a license and should we put this on PTS code it will only affect those who fork after the fact. Once this gains interest, more people will want to fork, and word will spread that there are versions without this license but under the MIT one. The wording of that license allows them to completely circumvent this one.

How do we deal with this?

Also i note that the license we are currently mulling on has lack of protection for a typical user in a situation where a dev abides the license in the beginning and decides to violate it later on after maybe seeing profits. The typical user includes some who would have claimed their share of the DAC via PTS and this license is meant to protect all PTS holders through and since we are claiming a portion "carry-over" in all modified versions we need to structure controls for such eventualities.

Locks are to keep honest people honest.
Licenses are to keep honorable people honorable.

With a proper definition of what is honorable, it is always possible to clone an honorable version from one that is not honorable.  Then it is up to market forces to decide whether honor matters.  We think PTS and AGS holders will represent very powerful market forces!   :)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 20, 2014, 08:11:51 pm
I have some questions and concerns. The code has been out for a while, so many forks in existence, all released under the MIT license. If a dev wants to get around the consensus they can easily use one of them. For example, the two on my git do not have a license and should we put this on PTS code it will only affect those who fork after the fact. Once this gains interest, more people will want to fork, and word will spread that there are versions without this license but under the MIT one. The wording of that license allows them to completely circumvent this one.

How do we deal with this?

Also i note that the license we are currently mulling on has lack of protection for a typical user in a situation where a dev abides the license in the beginning and decides to violate it later on after maybe seeing profits. The typical user includes some who would have claimed their share of the DAC via PTS and this license is meant to protect all PTS holders through and since we are claiming a portion "carry-over" in all modified versions we need to structure controls for such eventualities.

Locks are to keep honest people honest.
Licenses are to keep honorable people honorable.

With a proper definition of what is honorable, it is always possible to clone an honorable version from one that is not honorable.  Then it is up to market forces to decide whether honor matters.  We think PTS and AGS holders will represent very powerful market forces!   :)

When money is involved, people tend to not be honourable. If that is the answer then i guess we wont be acting on that.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 25, 2014, 01:53:59 am
it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts.
it was, remember the 1:1 mapping is equivalent to 10%, or was until it changed.

Mathematically, 1:1 mapping is only equivalent to 10% when there are 20 million shares. No where in the license does it say you can only have 20 million shares. Without that cap, 1:1 mapping is mathematically meaningless. I think you have to put a percentage in it.

Quote
if we use the 10% perhaps we may want to add a stipulation that the cap cannot be raised later on even if it gets a new dev maintaining it.

The license doesn't give you a right to sublicense, so you can't change the cap. And if it did give rights to sublicense, those terms would be in addition to the current terms. You can make it more strict, but you can't make it less strict since the original terms would propagate.


regarding the existing MIT (Expat) license, you're right - that's annoying. But it's already done. The only thing we can do going forward is to license new code/features under the license that represents what is wanted.

Once the definitions are cleaned up, what's left to work on? Something about how PTS/AGS holders have legal standing. I think a legal opinion letter should be obtained by I3 (as opposed to community members), since they are the ones that hold the copyright on the license document and would have standing.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 25, 2014, 09:02:55 pm
it was not in violation of the license since I would claim that I did do 1:1 mapping by giving every 1 DAC share for every 1 pts.
it was, remember the 1:1 mapping is equivalent to 10%, or was until it changed.

Mathematically, 1:1 mapping is only equivalent to 10% when there are 20 million shares. No where in the license does it say you can only have 20 million shares. Without that cap, 1:1 mapping is mathematically meaningless. I think you have to put a percentage in it.

Quote
if we use the 10% perhaps we may want to add a stipulation that the cap cannot be raised later on even if it gets a new dev maintaining it.

The license doesn't give you a right to sublicense, so you can't change the cap. And if it did give rights to sublicense, those terms would be in addition to the current terms. You can make it more strict, but you can't make it less strict since the original terms would propagate.


regarding the existing MIT (Expat) license, you're right - that's annoying. But it's already done. The only thing we can do going forward is to license new code/features under the license that represents what is wanted.

Once the definitions are cleaned up, what's left to work on? Something about how PTS/AGS holders have legal standing. I think a legal opinion letter should be obtained by I3 (as opposed to community members), since they are the ones that hold the copyright on the license document and would have standing.


Just some things i want to clarify, correct me if i am wrong. We want a copy(far)left solution, permissive after a person:-
1) Honours the consensus
2) Distributes the derivative with the license sans modifications
3) Makes their derivative publicly available in source form
4) Does not restrict further modification

This gives rights to share, modify and distribute yet is not restrictive while discouraging "intellectual property" believers.

BSD tends to not require release of source code. I'll change it to make it explicitly so.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: MaxPWR on January 26, 2014, 12:53:54 pm
I'm a licensed professional, but not for accounting or legal.  But I have some experience with regulatory approval and licensing for new design and corporate policy and procedure systems.

What is the status of this with respect to review and approval by a licensed and qualified professional?  I saw some comments about asking coworkers / licensed professionals for casual reviews, but have you had ongoing review / discussions / etc?  Is there a qualified professional on staff at I3?

I think the SCSL may provide some future legal / regulatory difficulties for the general DAC-Bitshares business model.

In the future, the SCSL will function as the basis for any business model, business plan, mission statement, articles of incorporation, bylaws, etc for any legal entity developing, operating, or offering a DAC for sale.  It will govern the virtual currency aspect of their business.  It will be up to that legal entity to "design" a commercial organization around the SCSL.

That organization will be responsible for classifying and accounting for all virtual currency transfers.  It is easiest to treat virtual currency transfers as "non-profit" or "non-taxable" for accounting purposes, until they are exchanged for fiat or physical goods.  If so, you are sort of "trading cooperative community stock based on future fiat value" instead of anything that needs tax accounting at the present time (e.g., income tax for services, sales / use tax for purchases).  If so, you can pay your distributed employees in stock options (virtual currency), and they are responsible for government and tax regulations (and, therefore, accounting) when they are used for taxable transactions.  If you can start from a "not for profit" classification for virtual currency transfers, and wait to classify / account / record transactions until they "enter the fiat world", then things are much simpler.

I do not think this is possible with the SCSL.  The SCSL would form a legal basis for the use of the DAC / PTS / AGS currency in any business plan by any legal entity.  The SCSL is a for-profit license.  Any virtual currency transfers performed by a DAC entity based on the SCSL would start from the assumption that they are for-profit transactions.  The DAC entity may have to account, value, justify, and possibly pay taxes on any virtual currency transfer - at non-fiat exchanges, at merchants, including between individual members or even moving to a new wallet.

The SCSL results in a starting assumption of "for-profit" for any transfer of PTS, AGS, or future DAC shares.

Does this significantly affect requirements and burdens for record-keeping, accounting, and potential audits?

Has any proposed DAC registered as a legal entity yet, or developed a full business model for review?  Have you gotten any feedback or concerns regarding this?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 26, 2014, 03:36:06 pm
@MaxPWR:
So far the SCSL is solely a software license that bestows on the user a license to use, modify, and redistribute the software. There are no rules or limitations placed on accounting, registration. There is a disclaimer that there is no warranty and that I3 is not responsible for problems that come up from use.

I think, from reading this thread, that the scope of the license is solely for software contributions. It's not intended to layout any legal or regulatory framework, but instead give users the freedom to do it as necessary (and as they deem appropriate).

The bounty asks for an official opinion letter by a lawyer, but I think it would be best if I3 obtains that (and not the community) since they are the copyright holders of the license and software.

The core of the software is a standard 3-clause BSD +4th clause on what defines the social contract (at least 10% of total money supply to PTS, 10% of total money supply to AGS). barwizi is trying to incorporate some copyleft language. \

I3 has some options now: do they want copyleft or the more permissive BSD? How do they want to define social consensus (legally, not the PR definition. Is it at least 10/10% of the total final money supply for PTS/AGS or is it 1:1 mapping of PTS/DAC shares in the genesis block such that at least 10% goes to PTS and corresponding amount to AGS)?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 26, 2014, 04:58:04 pm
legally defining the social contract is obnoxious.
The 1:1 mapping, alone, doesn't work for the previous reasons. The 10% of the final money supply (which I was advocating for) also doesn't work:
I create a normal coin with decreasing rewards over time. In the end there will be 20,000,000 coins. My genesis block gives 0 to PTS or AGS, but it is programed in that in the year 3014 I will give PTS holders 2,000,000 coins and AGS holders 2,000,000 coins. I cut out PTS/AGS holders for 1000 years, not in the spirit of the consensus.

Perhaps the social contract really is, "assets are distributed such that at no point would PTS holders or AGS holders hold less than 10% of the total available asset supply"
That covers genesis block all the way through completion, and accounts for inflation.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: MaxPWR on January 27, 2014, 07:13:51 am
Are there any parts that would become easier with a voting option to allow for future shareholder votes, etc? 

That's probably outside the scope of the document, but I mean, would it influence any parts of the license?

I'm thinking of a similar issue at memorycoin, as maybe a "pick your own license" application.  A user (i.e., business) could vote for a license ID to say they're adopting it, the holder of the license ID (e.g., individual, other blockchain, etc) could vote back to "approve / brand" the first address as an official licensee.

Unenforceable in virtual currency, except by impact on reputation, but could be used as a legal / contract basis.  And allows a market for a "pick your license" through community approval.  Almost license document version control. 

You could have multiple "approved" versions of the SCSL - 5%, 10%, 25%, and maybe it shows up through differences in support for various DACs during development / etc?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: luckybit on January 27, 2014, 09:23:23 am
Are there any parts that would become easier with a voting option to allow for future shareholder votes, etc? 

That's probably outside the scope of the document, but I mean, would it influence any parts of the license?

I'm thinking of a similar issue at memorycoin, as maybe a "pick your own license" application.  A user (i.e., business) could vote for a license ID to say they're adopting it, the holder of the license ID (e.g., individual, other blockchain, etc) could vote back to "approve / brand" the first address as an official licensee.

Unenforceable in virtual currency, except by impact on reputation, but could be used as a legal / contract basis.  And allows a market for a "pick your license" through community approval.  Almost license document version control. 

You could have multiple "approved" versions of the SCSL - 5%, 10%, 25%, and maybe it shows up through differences in support for various DACs during development / etc?

I asked Dan and Stan about voting and it seems they aren't into the idea of voting. This only leaves the process we have here which is discussion, gentleman's consensus, and tacit cooperation in enforcing it whether or not there is a legal document.

There should be a legal document because it gives the community legal enforcement capabilities rather than just social. So anyone who respects the law and legal system will be expected to follow the rules laid out in the license as to what is allowed.

I don't think there is any way around having a license. The license isn't to protect the community from the community but to protect it from big businesses with connections to banks and government among others.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: MaxPWR on January 27, 2014, 04:19:27 pm
I get that.

But...let's say I'm a new guy - short answer / link to other forum post for the following:

"So...I buy PTS, and then I have a license?"

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 27, 2014, 06:51:59 pm
I get that.

But...let's say I'm a new guy - short answer / link to other forum post for the following:

"So...I buy PTS, and then I have a license?"

I don't think you need a license to own PTS, the same way you don't need a license to own BTS. It's just if you use the software you need a license for the software, the same way it works with BTS.

If you use a web wallet, you don't need a license. But the people that run the web wallet would need a license if they are running I3 software. If they coded their own pts/DAC software that interfaces to the bitshare/DAC network, they don't need any license at all.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: MaxPWR on January 27, 2014, 09:03:42 pm
Maybe instead of "buy PTS", I should have said "invest" or "want to buy services or goods" with it...a combination of savings power and purchasing power...fundamental value.

Can you explain the financial relationships / effects of the license to "small DACs" or start-up web services...maybe like an ebay start-up seller or micro-blogger site?

E.g., what do you mean by "I3 software" and "use the software"?  Do you mean "developed by I3 in the future" / "fork the code"?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 28, 2014, 07:39:45 am
Maybe instead of "buy PTS", I should have said "invest" or "want to buy services or goods" with it...a combination of savings power and purchasing power...fundamental value.

Can you explain the financial relationships / effects of the license to "small DACs" or start-up web services...maybe like an ebay start-up seller or micro-blogger site?

E.g., what do you mean by "I3 software" and "use the software"?  Do you mean "developed by I3 in the future" / "fork the code"?

either way, if all you do is use the units without the code then you need not worry about the license. those that make direct use of the software and/or want to fork/modify however have to worry about their position.

I think what you want to know is if holding PTS gives you legal standing, III intends to give such legal standing. I am working on how to put that in legalese so expect the update in a few hours.

Your small DAC at the beginning allocates 10% of it's equity to PTS,  the effect is right at the beginning, you already have thousands of possible customers willing to purchase your services. It is also meant as a mechanism that with good management and application can secure a "stable" base price for equity units. The relationship goes both ways, by raising good value on your equity, it will help PTS rise, but also, when PTS rises so does your equity value.

III software is anything developed by them, bounties or otherwise paid for by them. Use of the software includes but is not limited to running it as it is, making modifications and forking.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: MaxPWR on January 29, 2014, 11:32:57 pm

Your small DAC at the beginning allocates 10% of it's equity to PTS,  the effect is right at the beginning, you already have thousands of possible customers willing to purchase your services. It is also meant as a mechanism that with good management and application can secure a "stable" base price for equity units. The relationship goes both ways, by raising good value on your equity, it will help PTS rise, but also, when PTS rises so does your equity value.

III software is anything developed by them, bounties or otherwise paid for by them. Use of the software includes but is not limited to running it as it is, making modifications and forking.

Great answer - thanks a lot :)

When you think of PTS / DACs in a "total economy" sense - "user" has many different meanings. I think you wiggled around the one member class I was looking for...which I think is good.

3rd party (non-I3) software which uses/interfaces with I3 software without modification to I3 code, seem...exempt?  (Did I just describe a DAC in legal-ese?)

They could probly go around PTS / use another currency /etc. But wouldn't want to depending on stability / timeframe / etc like you said - and access to network of PTS individuals / reputation / etc.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 30, 2014, 09:37:18 am

Your small DAC at the beginning allocates 10% of it's equity to PTS,  the effect is right at the beginning, you already have thousands of possible customers willing to purchase your services. It is also meant as a mechanism that with good management and application can secure a "stable" base price for equity units. The relationship goes both ways, by raising good value on your equity, it will help PTS rise, but also, when PTS rises so does your equity value.

III software is anything developed by them, bounties or otherwise paid for by them. Use of the software includes but is not limited to running it as it is, making modifications and forking.

Great answer - thanks a lot :)

When you think of PTS / DACs in a "total economy" sense - "user" has many different meanings. I think you wiggled around the one member class I was looking for...which I think is good.

3rd party (non-I3) software which uses/interfaces with I3 software without modification to I3 code, seem...exempt?  (Did I just describe a DAC in legal-ese?)

They could probly go around PTS / use another currency /etc. But wouldn't want to depending on stability / timeframe / etc like you said - and access to network of PTS individuals / reputation / etc.

Quote
3rd party (non-I3) software which uses/interfaces with I3 software without modification to I3 code, seem...exempt?  (Did I just describe a DAC in legal-ese?)

that is correct, since they are not modifying the actual code.

Quote
They could probly go around PTS / use another currency /etc. But wouldn't want to depending on stability / timeframe / etc like you said - and access to network of PTS individuals / reputation / etc.

yes you can create A DAC  with other code, but you would be hard pressed on the dev side since that means you have to do everything  yourself, none of the improvements offered here will apply to you.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on January 31, 2014, 01:38:32 pm
I like:
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

But could there be one tweak in (4)?
"At no point will there be less than 10% of the total shares allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS, distributed proportionally to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held at genesis block initialization. Additionally, at no point will there be less than 10% of the total shares allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS, distributed proportionally to the total BitShares AGS held at genesis block initialization."

This covers genesis and prevents dilution.


EDIT: Actually, the current language is pretty good and covers my concerns. The above change would only allow inflationary coins, which the currently language doesn't allow - but I don't really mind either way.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on January 31, 2014, 02:15:14 pm
Is that the final version all round or just for Bitshares?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 04, 2014, 09:34:05 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on February 04, 2014, 09:36:45 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 20, 2014, 06:23:29 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.

Which makes it applicable to DACs that use the code only. You need to re-think this to include those that will use their own.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on February 20, 2014, 09:36:11 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.

Which makes it applicable to DACs that use the code only. You need to re-think this to include those that will use their own.

What legal tool is there to enforce social consensus on someone that doesn't use your code?

In another, buried post, bytemaster and stan described all the benefits one gets for following social contract (free consulting, advertising, sponsorship to conferences). I think that's a good model:
"if you use our code you must follow social contract. If you follow the social contract (whether or not you use our code), you get all this free stuff."
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 20, 2014, 09:51:57 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.

Which makes it applicable to DACs that use the code only. You need to re-think this to include those that will use their own.

What legal tool is there to enforce social consensus on someone that doesn't use your code?

In another, buried post, bytemaster and stan described all the benefits one gets for following social contract (free consulting, advertising, sponsorship to conferences). I think that's a good model:
"if you use our code you must follow social contract. If you follow the social contract (whether or not you use our code), you get all this free stuff."

That is what think about it means, if i had an idea, i would have simply posted it.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: Stan on February 21, 2014, 03:39:52 am
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.

Which makes it applicable to DACs that use the code only. You need to re-think this to include those that will use their own.

I would just add that AGS donors are funding more than just "the code".  They are funding everything their funds are being used for to build the entire ecosystem.  All the bounties.  All the publicity.  All the videos, and papers, and infrastructure and legal foundation, and...

If you aren't using any of that, you owe AGS donors nothing, with a clear conscience.

But you still might rather have them be the ones who get a vested interest rather than people just interested in free pizza money.  AGS holders are, after all, proven willing and able investors in this industry.  You want them to be interested in what you are doing.  Very interested!

It's not about who you owe as much as who you want to attract.

When the time comes to field a lottery DAC, the business model will dictate that you reserve some % for early jackpots to attract players rather than investors.

Once you switch to that Marketing Mental Model (MMM), it may start to make a bit more sense for 3rd parties who don't need any help from the community. 

You are, of course, wise to attract pizza eaters if you are fielding a pizzeria DAC.   :)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 21, 2014, 01:12:22 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.

Which makes it applicable to DACs that use the code only. You need to re-think this to include those that will use their own.

I would just add that AGS donors are funding more than just "the code".  They are funding everything their funds are being used for to build the entire ecosystem.  All the bounties.  All the publicity.  All the videos, and papers, and infrastructure and legal foundation, and...

If you aren't using any of that, you owe AGS donors nothing, with a clear conscience.

But you still might rather have them be the ones who get a vested interest rather than people just interested in free pizza money.  AGS holders are, after all, proven willing and able investors in this industry.  You want them to be interested in what you are doing.  Very interested!

It's not about who you owe as much as who you want to attract.

When the time comes to field a lottery DAC, the business model will dictate that you reserve some % for early jackpots to attract players rather than investors.

Once you switch to that Marketing Mental Model (MMM), it may start to make a bit more sense for 3rd parties who don't need any help from the community. 

You are, of course, wise to attract pizza eaters if you are fielding a pizzeria DAC.   :)

My point exactly, the structure should be more like an invitation to a BoB (bring own beer) party. The host AGS/PTS has already set up the venue and paid for the furniture, now everyone must bring their own beer and we can have a party. You are free to go and have your own party but the advantages of being at one party are better.


Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: Stan on February 21, 2014, 05:21:31 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.

Which makes it applicable to DACs that use the code only. You need to re-think this to include those that will use their own.

I would just add that AGS donors are funding more than just "the code".  They are funding everything their funds are being used for to build the entire ecosystem.  All the bounties.  All the publicity.  All the videos, and papers, and infrastructure and legal foundation, and...

If you aren't using any of that, you owe AGS donors nothing, with a clear conscience.

But you still might rather have them be the ones who get a vested interest rather than people just interested in free pizza money.  AGS holders are, after all, proven willing and able investors in this industry.  You want them to be interested in what you are doing.  Very interested!

It's not about who you owe as much as who you want to attract.

When the time comes to field a lottery DAC, the business model will dictate that you reserve some % for early jackpots to attract players rather than investors.

Once you switch to that Marketing Mental Model (MMM), it may start to make a bit more sense for 3rd parties who don't need any help from the community. 

You are, of course, wise to attract pizza eaters if you are fielding a pizzeria DAC.   :)

My point exactly, the structure should be more like an invitation to a BoB (bring own beer) party. The host AGS/PTS has already set up the venue and paid for the furniture, now everyone must bring their own beer and we can have a party. You are free to go and have your own party but the advantages of being at one party are better.

Of course, it's good social etiquette to bring enough extra beer to share with the hosts...

  ;)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 21, 2014, 06:55:46 pm
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

There is no difference, all DACs that use the code are AGS funded.

Which makes it applicable to DACs that use the code only. You need to re-think this to include those that will use their own.

I would just add that AGS donors are funding more than just "the code".  They are funding everything their funds are being used for to build the entire ecosystem.  All the bounties.  All the publicity.  All the videos, and papers, and infrastructure and legal foundation, and...

If you aren't using any of that, you owe AGS donors nothing, with a clear conscience.

But you still might rather have them be the ones who get a vested interest rather than people just interested in free pizza money.  AGS holders are, after all, proven willing and able investors in this industry.  You want them to be interested in what you are doing.  Very interested!

It's not about who you owe as much as who you want to attract.

When the time comes to field a lottery DAC, the business model will dictate that you reserve some % for early jackpots to attract players rather than investors.

Once you switch to that Marketing Mental Model (MMM), it may start to make a bit more sense for 3rd parties who don't need any help from the community. 

You are, of course, wise to attract pizza eaters if you are fielding a pizzeria DAC.   :)

My point exactly, the structure should be more like an invitation to a BoB (bring own beer) party. The host AGS/PTS has already set up the venue and paid for the furniture, now everyone must bring their own beer and we can have a party. You are free to go and have your own party but the advantages of being at one party are better.

Of course, it's good social etiquette to bring enough extra beer to share with the hosts...

  ;)

Where i come from, you bring vodka   :)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 21, 2014, 07:03:34 pm
so...how to move forward?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 23, 2014, 10:30:03 am
Changed to include some changes in language and words.

I would think this has to be in place for launch?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJoHfPO3lCV5pSVoHiZ2s3sp6yUUkVDSkul15A4dWPY/edit# (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJoHfPO3lCV5pSVoHiZ2s3sp6yUUkVDSkul15A4dWPY/edit#)
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: maqifrnswa on February 23, 2014, 05:57:20 pm
There are typos and a bug in the existing license:
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

"The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block."

allcoated -> allocated

The last sentence can be read as:
10% of the total lifetime shares allocated by the blockchain to holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

That reads as if I only need to allocate 10% of the shares I will allocate to BitShares AGS holders in the genesis block. So if I was going to give 1million shares to AGS holders, I only need to give them 100k in the genesis block.

I'd use the same language for both PTS and AGS holders:
The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever to be allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally, the genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever to be allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares AGS held.

EDIT:comments on barwizi's clause 4:
Quote
All modified redistributions shall allocate at least 10 % of the total value supply units to BitShares PTS holders at genesis of the modified version. All BitShares AGS sponsored redistributions shall allocate a further 10% of the total value supply to BitShares AGS holders at genesis. The remaining value supply is allocated at distributor's discretion while preserving the percentages throughout the modified redistributions’ lifetime.
what is a modified redistribution?
why "shall"? It should just be "All modified redistributions allocate at least" since it is a restrictive condition.
the last sentence is a nice addition, but technically all sentences in clause 4 list "conditions" so maybe reword it:
"The remaining value supply is allocated at distributor's discretion such that the percentages allocated to BitShares PTS and AGS holders do not decrease below 10% each throughout the modified redistributions’ lifetime."
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on February 23, 2014, 08:35:02 pm
There are typos and a bug in the existing license:
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

"The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block."

allcoated -> allocated

The last sentence can be read as:
10% of the total lifetime shares allocated by the blockchain to holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

That reads as if I only need to allocate 10% of the shares I will allocate to BitShares AGS holders in the genesis block. So if I was going to give 1million shares to AGS holders, I only need to give them 100k in the genesis block.

I'd use the same language for both PTS and AGS holders:
The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever to be allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally, the genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever to be allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares AGS held.

EDIT:comments on barwizi's clause 4:
Quote
All modified redistributions shall allocate at least 10 % of the total value supply units to BitShares PTS holders at genesis of the modified version. All BitShares AGS sponsored redistributions shall allocate a further 10% of the total value supply to BitShares AGS holders at genesis. The remaining value supply is allocated at distributor's discretion while preserving the percentages throughout the modified redistributions’ lifetime.
what is a modified redistribution?
why "shall"? It should just be "All modified redistributions allocate at least" since it is a restrictive condition.
the last sentence is a nice addition, but technically all sentences in clause 4 list "conditions" so maybe reword it:
"The remaining value supply is allocated at distributor's discretion such that the percentages allocated to BitShares PTS and AGS holders do not decrease below 10% each throughout the modified redistributions’ lifetime."

Done
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: barwizi on March 01, 2014, 07:16:17 pm
uh, this is still active right?
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
Post by: bytemaster on March 01, 2014, 09:12:17 pm
uh, this is still active right?

I have been putting some serious thought into this license and have concluded that any licenses short of placing this in the public domain may have undesirable regulatory consequences not to mention being against my own beliefs about intellectual property being invalid to begin with.  Therefore, I would like to tip everyone who helped participate in the discussion and who worked very hard evaluating this bounty.   It was an interesting idea  worthy of the discussion and time spent on it.

Barsizi... because you have so persistently pursued this and contributed to the cause I will throw 100 PTS your way. 
maqifrnswa... you have contributed extremely valuable ideas and I will also throw 100 PTS your way.
btclawyer...  as you are a lawyer and spent significant time advising us I will throw you 100 PTS tip as well.

Everyone else who participated in this thread I will throw 1 PTS per post tip your way... just provide me a post count and address.

Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]
Post by: bytemaster on March 01, 2014, 09:14:01 pm
Note this is all about moving to the post-contract society, and a software license is a contract. 
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]
Post by: maqifrnswa on March 01, 2014, 09:39:26 pm
that is very generous, thank you
Ppf3WEcqakR7CarJWYQ41D5H7UWZKTz5vd
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]
Post by: luckybit on March 03, 2014, 05:34:51 am
I made 9 posts. I hope Bytemaster knows what he is doing and has considered the potential economic ramifications of putting the code in the public domain.

PTS: PbmenFACZN9CfXTgEvsVkMT6g41bv7ZRQx

PTS digital signature: IBh46MQ6B4jb+jjINbCX70fiKdDQysf22i2ITIbJ7tQ4oHNMPoJLMiNs8zgcUNH/FZe1TqVbuLvkRXhUUt2lN50=
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]
Post by: bytemaster on March 10, 2014, 07:47:01 pm
I made 9 posts. I hope Bytemaster knows what he is doing and has considered the potential economic ramifications of putting the code in the public domain.

PTS: PbmenFACZN9CfXTgEvsVkMT6g41bv7ZRQx

PTS digital signature: IBh46MQ6B4jb+jjINbCX70fiKdDQysf22i2ITIbJ7tQ4oHNMPoJLMiNs8zgcUNH/FZe1TqVbuLvkRXhUUt2lN50=
economic ramifications  - please enlighten me on what ramifications you can think of, just in case I missed something.
Title: Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]
Post by: maqifrnswa on March 12, 2014, 03:06:50 pm
I think there are some misconceptions, I've seen several posts this morning implying that the code has no license.

1) The code is licensed
2) The code license includes the social contract

text of the code license is here:
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

3) If code is not licensed, it is not public domain. If Invictus did not license the code, no one would be allowed to use it without permission.