Author Topic: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]  (Read 21220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #105 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.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline bytemaster

Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #106 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%.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #107 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.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #108 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.

--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #109 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.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #110 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!   :)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #111 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.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #112 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.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 06:49:56 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #113 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.

--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline MaxPWR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
  • Sink 2UR Source
    • View Profile
    • Max's Power Plant
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #114 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?
You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

PWR UP: MAXVTEoYhDfWJjvkNm2ZmUhHpYbsPYuybg

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #115 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)?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 04:48:54 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #116 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.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 06:05:24 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline MaxPWR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
  • Sink 2UR Source
    • View Profile
    • Max's Power Plant
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #117 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?
You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

PWR UP: MAXVTEoYhDfWJjvkNm2ZmUhHpYbsPYuybg

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #118 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.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline MaxPWR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
  • Sink 2UR Source
    • View Profile
    • Max's Power Plant
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #119 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?"

You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

PWR UP: MAXVTEoYhDfWJjvkNm2ZmUhHpYbsPYuybg