SCL (Social Consensus License)

[bytemaster]

Thanks luckybit, this is something we have considered!

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.   

We will start a bounty for such a license and then direct our lawyer contacts to the opportunity.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1708.msg18938#msg18938

[bytemaster]

Thanks luckybit, this is something we have considered!

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.   

We will start a bounty for such a license and then direct our lawyer contacts to the opportunity. 

[luckybit]

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 did not know whether to put this into legal or elsewhere so my apology for the duplication. This is something I think must be done and when I write code for projects I will license it exclusively to the community by using a license which recognizes the Social Consensus or which is the Social Consensus License if Invictus Innovations can come up with the words for us to use.