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 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.
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
Thoughts?
It seems that the title is already determined:
Social Consensus Software License (SCSL)
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 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.
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.
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?
Inspiration: http://p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit?usp=sharingIf I make contributions to this will I get credit?
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.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit?usp=sharingIf I make contributions to this will I get credit?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
andyjbeal@gmail.com
andyjbeal@gmail.com
Barwizi
Add me to the documentation for editing whitebrain(dot)greyleaf(at)gmail(dot)com
post for support
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 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.
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.
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
==THIS WOULD BE A PREAMBLE IF IT ADDED ANYTHING OF WORTH TO THE PRECEDING AND IF IT CAME BEFORE IT==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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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
“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.
“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.
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.
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)
"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)
"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..
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.
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.
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
QuoteThe 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?Quoteyour 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.
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.
QuoteIf 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"?
© 2014 Protoshares and Angelshares Holders all rights reservedIs that correct? I hold protoshares, so do I have a license to edit and distribute the document? The document should be (c) whomever wrote/paid for it, and can be all rights reserved or some other license
Protoshares and associated “"Product"s are collective property of PTS/AGS holdersis that true? If I send someone a protoshare, that protoshare is protected under the terms of this license? Can you put a license on what you can use protoshares for? Shouldn't all products (I'm assuming you mean software products) be licensed under this license, but the code is property of whomever wrote/paid for it? If this license is violated, who is the injured party that has legal standing to bring suit? I own protoshares, can I prevent you from prosecuting a violation of this license?
“Alternative DAC” funded by AGS must additionally allocate at least 10% of its equity to AngelShares holders at genesis.what defines a DAC funded by AGS? If I don't actually raise AGS to fund my project, but instead use a derived work that was funded by AGS, does that count?
Clearly document their product and make it publicly available and convey with each “Product” unit a complete verbatim copy of this license and clearly state that they intend to honour the AngelShares Social Consensus.unenforceable term: what does "clearly document" mean? the source code? document usage?
You may convey modified versions under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to ensure that, the Product does not contain malware and the data it still operates, and performs on is trained to stated purpose and is not used in or as part of a larger push towards violating civil liberties, privacy, security and/or criminal activity.nearly unenforceable: What is malware? if my code checks in to a master server to check for updates, is that malware? some would consider it. Who defines civil liberties, privacy, etc.? Since those change with jurisdiction, is this a regional-dependent license?
Use the Product as part of a larger push towards violating civil liberties, privacy, security and/or getting yourself and PTS/AGS holders civil or criminal proceedings.while good intentions, is this an enforceable statement? A license document really doesn't usually lay out "you may not" terms since they are not really prosecutable or enforceable, you just have to say a licensee was not following the terms of the license - no need to say they were following the terms of the "you may not" terms of the license. And if someone gets PTS/AGS holders in trouble, this won't protect you at all.
Use the product in the commision of criminal actseverything must be laid out in terms, not "not terms" - "You are granted a license to use and distribute products as limited by law."
Entity may not:-this whole section is legally weird, I suggest rewriting it in terms of "terms", lay out what they can do and limitations of that, not as a list of what they can't do.
Use any “Product “ for commercial gain unless the “Product” and entity honour the Social Consensus.make this a term, combine with: You may modify, distribute, and use the “Product” in binary and source forms for non-commercial use. You may modify, distribute, and use the “Product” in binary and source forms for commercial use if you honour the Social Consensus.
Attempt to subvert this license by use of coercion or illegal means to influence community membersthis is doubly weird, a "not" term that says the license forbids you from doing something illegal?
Protoshares and associated "Product"s are collective property of PTS/AGS holders and are provided under the terms of this COPYFARLEFT PUBLIC LICENSE.
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.
everything must be laid out in terms, not "not terms" - "You are granted a license to use and distribute products as limited by law."thanks for the tip.
make this a term, combine with: You may modify, distribute, and use the “Product” in binary and source forms for non-commercial use. You may modify, distribute, and use the “Product” in binary and source forms for commercial use if you honour the Social Consensus.
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.
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.
lol, sure you don't want editing rights?I believe modify source form includes editing.
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.
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.
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.
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?]
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.
take a look at the current version
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."
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”); andI 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.
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 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?
"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?]
"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.
Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?
License 2) an extra strong copyleft license that does not enforce the social contract (for entities that do not claim copyright)
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
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.
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.
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?
Quotethat 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
QuoteThe 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?Quoteyour 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 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.
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?
QuoteAll 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?
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.
4. Modifications must preserve the condition that at least 10% ofinitially allocatedtotal digital assets are assignedproportionallywith a 1:1 mapping to PTS holders and at least 10% ofinitially allocateddigital 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
QuoteCould 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 like "stake" that you used, but I'm not a lawyer and would like to see their opinion.QuoteCould 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.
:) 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.
:) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! :)
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.
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.Quoteif 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.
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 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?"
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"?
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.
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.
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.
Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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. :)
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.
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...
;)
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?
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:QuoteAll 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."
uh, this is still active right?
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.economic ramifications - please enlighten me on what ramifications you can think of, just in case I missed something.
PTS: PbmenFACZN9CfXTgEvsVkMT6g41bv7ZRQx
PTS digital signature: IBh46MQ6B4jb+jjINbCX70fiKdDQysf22i2ITIbJ7tQ4oHNMPoJLMiNs8zgcUNH/FZe1TqVbuLvkRXhUUt2lN50=