Author Topic: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]  (Read 18291 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2014, 09:07:21 pm »
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. 
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 btclawyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2014, 01:14:45 am »
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

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 #62 on: January 14, 2014, 08:41:00 am »
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


I do not have permission to comment on the doc, so i'll post the comments here for the time being, please allow me to comment so we can keep this thread clean. 

Quote
“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.

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.

Quote
“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.

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.


Quote
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.

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.

I'm curious as to why in your licensing and restrictions you chose to model it after the Peer Production License. In my version I made a clear distinction between commons and non-commons use of the product to meet these requirements.

Quote
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)

I tried to limit the legalese to make it readable by anyone.

Quote
"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)

 
--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 #63 on: January 14, 2014, 10:00:33 am »
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 01:45:48 pm by barwizi »
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline btclawyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2014, 05:33:54 pm »
Quote
"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.
.

Agreed.  Let's make this more broad.

Quote
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.

"money supply", just like "shares", are phrases that already have a lot of association in the financial/legal worlds.  I wanted to avoid confusion with existing concepts.  I do agree that consistent terminology across the consensus and the license is helpful.

Quote
note to bytemaster---- the website calls it the Bitshares Social Concensus, lets get our terms of reference in order.

Up to Daniel - I don't have a strong opinion either way. 

Quote
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.

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 #65 on: January 14, 2014, 05:42:19 pm »

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.

Seems you stripped out the important parts. I think it would be best if we worked off my document, jumping between the two will just take up time. you already have rights to comment and modify.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 05:55:57 pm by barwizi »
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline btclawyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2014, 11:01:03 pm »
Quote
The 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?

Quote
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

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.



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 #67 on: January 14, 2014, 11:57:20 pm »
Quote
The 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?

Quote
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

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 understand the philosophical argument here about believing and not believing in IP; however, in reality, this is almost impossible to enforce.

Emphasis is placed on the two-way nature of the Consensus in that it is a community driven and community enforced.

Consider it a BY-SA-NC on use without honouring the consensus.

Please read the spec carefully, and the ensuing arguments from the beginning of the thread. This is a delicate situation in which we are trying to protect our investments while allowing public use. The purpose is to encourage people to bring ideas and resources to the community and work with us, not to just grab and use the code without honouring those who are making it happen. 

 
Quote
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.

As for changing your mind, the Termination section deals with that.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 11:59:43 pm by barwizi »
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline btclawyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #68 on: January 15, 2014, 12:46:55 am »
Quote
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.

How do you determine whether someone "subscribes to IP"?

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 #69 on: January 15, 2014, 08:27:08 am »
Quote
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.

How do you determine whether someone "subscribes to IP"?

I don't need to determine anything. I simply state the restrictions. A company that  supports copyRight is easily spotted by the supporting documentation and it's products. I do not see a copyLeft company having copyRight documentation or products.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline btclawyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #70 on: January 15, 2014, 05:17:40 pm »
Bar, can you give me some examples of copyleft companies to go look at?

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #71 on: January 15, 2014, 06:30:10 pm »
some comments from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGMvn2kMHQCK1ji4ieOV9Bt2wusq81C33GVxjzKEHSg/edit

overall, I find some confusion as to whether this is a software license, or a license to use securities (there is ambiguity). I also think this document reads more like a manifesto of guidelines and rules rather than a conveyance of rights. Licenses are solely a conveyance of rights and should be written telling someone how they can use the software, not how the may not use it. If it isn't stated in the license, then they cannot do it. Perhaps have a "license" document and a separate "usage" document, like GPL does, to clarify.

Quote
© 2014 Protoshares and Angelshares Holders all rights reserved
Is 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

Quote
Protoshares and associated “"Product"s are collective property of PTS/AGS holders
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?

Quote
“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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
Use the product in the commision of criminal acts
everything must be laid out in terms, not "not terms" - "You are granted a license to use and distribute products as limited by law."

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Attempt to subvert this license by use of coercion or illegal means to influence community members
this is doubly weird, a "not" term that says the license forbids you from doing something illegal?


EDIT: 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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 06:40:40 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 #72 on: January 15, 2014, 07:20:59 pm »
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 
Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
--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 #73 on: January 15, 2014, 08:56:51 pm »
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.

Quote
lol, sure you don't want editing rights?
I believe modify source form includes editing.

Quote
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.
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 #74 on: January 15, 2014, 11:51:54 pm »
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.

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.