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

[barwizi]

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

[btclawyer]

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

[bytemaster]

"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.

[btclawyer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll noodle on these.

[maqifrnswa]

take a look at the current version

it's much better.

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

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

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

the Alternative DAC shall allocate at least 10% of the Money Supply, proportionally to the holders of PTS, and at least 10% of the Money Supply, proportionally to the holders of AGS (the “Social Consensus”); and

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

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

[barwizi]

take a look at the current version

[maqifrnswa]

Traditional copy-left doesn't go far enough... but perhaps copy-far-left does. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bytemaster]

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.

[maqifrnswa]

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

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

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

License choice 1) "Copyright acknowledging" 3-clause BSD (http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause), with an additional clause:

4. Modifications must preserve the condition that at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally to PTS holders and at least 10% of initially allocated digital assets are assigned proportionally do AGS holders per the definitions below.

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

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

I guess I'd like to know how, in practice, you'd like the proposed "License choice 2" to be used and enforced versus a traditional copyleft license.

[barwizi]

new look doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit

[bytemaster]

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.

[maqifrnswa]

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!)

[bytemaster]

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]

thanks for the response. My experience (non-professional) is in evaluating open source software licenses from a Debian point of view. I understand what you're doing - trying to do a document that does both software licensing and ecosystem licensing to protect investors.

The situation is unique and so are the requirements meant to be satisfied by the document. Most likely as the industry progresses you may actually see a new class of license being adopted to protect peoples investments. Because if i was to follow your general thoughts based on your comments, i'd create a license that does nothing to protect the investors of PTS and AGS actually basically a free for all license. This is a business and deserves the right to protect itself.

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

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.

This is an attempt at copyfarleft, not at all with GPL. I perused the code and everything is under the MIT license. There are no conflicts.[/quote]

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


I've read many "homebrew" licenses before, and this reads like one. I fear this license is trying to do too much and not working within a standard licensing framework. I don't know barwizi background, he may be qualified for this, but for $20k you should get some silicon valley firm to write you a solid license that would be internationally enforceable. This is an extremely important job, probably not suitable for a bounty. No real lawyer will work for a bounty, and you won't be able to hire one to enforce a license by bounty either.

[barwizi]

Perhaps have a "license" document and a separate "usage" document, like GPL does, to clarify.

ok, that would be a better idea.

is that true? If I send someone a protoshare, that protoshare is protected under the terms of this license? Can you put a license on what you can use protoshares for? Shouldn't all products (I'm assuming you mean software products) be licensed under this license, but the code is property of whomever wrote/paid for it? If this license is violated, who is the injured party that has legal standing to bring suit? I own protoshares, can I prevent you from prosecuting a violation of this license?

This is community enforced,  read 

Protoshares and associated "Product"s are collective property of PTS/AGS holders and are provided under the terms of this COPYFARLEFT PUBLIC LICENSE.

what defines a DAC funded by AGS? If I don't actually raise AGS to fund my project, but instead use a derived work that was funded by AGS, does that count? A DAC funded by AGS is one whose development and other such costs is paid for from that fund. As for derived works, Please read the Consensus

unenforceable term: what does "clearly document" mean? the source code? document usage? I'll change the wording but it is integral to telling the difference between the original work and a derivative. To clearly document a poduct means to describe it and it's functions, and in this case state what changes have been made that make this product different from the original.

nearly unenforceable: What is malware? if my code checks in to a master server to check for updates, is that malware? some would consider it. Who defines civil liberties, privacy, etc.? Since those change with jurisdiction, is this a regional-dependent license? malware is malicious software. as for the dependency on jurisdiction, you cant expect the license to include a guide to each countries laws. it's up to the aspiring DAC creators to observe those.

while good intentions, is this an enforceable statement? A license document really doesn't usually lay out "you may not" terms since they are not really prosecutable or enforceable, you just have to say a licensee was not following the terms of the license - no need to say they were following the terms of the "you may not" terms of the license. And if someone gets PTS/AGS holders in trouble, this won't protect you at all.

read Indemnify the collective and Original Developers (where applicable) and that the copy complies with this license document.

The situation is unique and so are the requirements meant to be satisfied by the document. Most likely as the industry progresses you may actually see a new class of license being adopted to protect peoples investments. Because if i was to follow your general thoughts based on your comments, i'd create a license that does nothing to protect the investors of PTS and AGS actually basically a free for all license. This is a business and deserves the right to protect itself.

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.

lol, sure you don't want editing rights?

Also, be careful with this software license. It is considered "non-free" and is almost definitely incompatible with GPL. Linking with any GPL libraries would be a license violation of GPL.

This is an attempt at copyfarleft, not at all with GPL. I perused the code and everything is under the MIT license. There are no conflicts.