1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]

[maqifrnswa]

I get that.

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

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

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

If you use a web wallet, you don't need a license. But the people that run the web wallet would need a license if they are running I3 software. If they coded their own pts/DAC software that interfaces to the bitshare/DAC network, they don't need any license at all.

[MaxPWR]

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"?

[barwizi]

Maybe instead of "buy PTS", I should have said "invest" or "want to buy services or goods" with it...a combination of savings power and purchasing power...fundamental value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxPWR]

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.

[barwizi]

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?)

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

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

yes you can create A DAC  with other code, but you would be hard pressed on the dev side since that means you have to do everything  yourself, none of the improvements offered here will apply to you.

[maqifrnswa]

I like:
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

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

This covers genesis and prevents dilution.

EDIT: Actually, the current language is pretty good and covers my concerns. The above change would only allow inflationary coins, which the currently language doesn't allow - but I don't really mind either way.

[barwizi]

Is that the final version all round or just for Bitshares?

[barwizi]

Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

[bytemaster]

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.

[barwizi]

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.

[maqifrnswa]

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."

[barwizi]

Will the consensus be amended or will it maintain the difference between AGS funded DAC vs 3rd party DAC?

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

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

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

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

That is what think about it means, if i had an idea, i would have simply posted it.

[Stan]

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.   

[barwizi]

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.

[Stan]

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...