Author Topic: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [CLOSED]  (Read 21507 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 #75 on: January 16, 2014, 04:31:36 am »
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!)
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 #76 on: January 16, 2014, 04:46:45 am »
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.

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
--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 #78 on: January 17, 2014, 04:54:57 pm »
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:
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 05:00:34 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 bytemaster

Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #79 on: January 17, 2014, 05:16:06 pm »
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.
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 maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #80 on: January 17, 2014, 07:10:41 pm »
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.
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 #81 on: January 17, 2014, 08:27:54 pm »
take a look at the current version
--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 #82 on: January 17, 2014, 09:02:57 pm »
take a look at the current version

it's much better.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
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 btclawyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #83 on: January 17, 2014, 10:52:25 pm »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
"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.


Offline bytemaster

Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #84 on: January 18, 2014, 12:01:54 am »
Quote
"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.
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 #85 on: January 18, 2014, 12:22:24 am »
Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?

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 #86 on: January 18, 2014, 01:06:48 am »
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
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #87 on: January 18, 2014, 01:38:05 am »
License 2) an extra strong copyleft license that does not enforce the social contract (for entities that do not claim copyright)

If the entity does not claim copyright what is the point of having a license at all? And if they do claim copyright that is why they should read License 1.

So I don't see any reason why we should have more than 1 License for all. If you don't believe in copyright then don't read the license because it's legalese gibberish but if you do believe in that then read and follow the law.

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

I agree. There is no reason why more than one license should exist. Having more than one makes it unnecessary and complicated. No one is going to read a license if they don't believe in copyright. Do "pirates" read the FBI warning?

« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 01:39:41 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: 1000 PTS - Write Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) [ACTIVE]
« Reply #88 on: January 18, 2014, 05:09:54 am »
These are my non-professional opinions, take them or leave them. This is just based on lots of open source software licensing experience from a distribution point of view. If it helps, great - if not - that's great too.

Quote
"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.

so you're ok with people taking the protoshares code and removing the social consensus as long as they keep it trade secret? That seems like the worst of both worlds. If I was a company, i'd spin-off an LLC that forks code, makes changes and keeps the changes trade secret without giving anything back to the community, and I'd be protected by your license.

If the entity does not claim copyright what is the point of having a license at all? And if they do claim copyright that is why they should read License 1.
Because even if they don't follow copyright, the courts of their jurisdiction do. The parenthesis was for our own clarification, that would not actually show up in the license because courts don't care if you don't follow copyright. Therefore, we need something that will do what I3 wants but using language courts would uphold. The strong copyleft was just there to ensure that third parties would be forced to disclose code/cease usage if they turned hostile.

Quote
So I don't see any reason why we should have more than 1 License for all. If you don't believe in copyright then don't read the license because it's legalese gibberish but if you do believe in that then read and follow the law.
Because you're trying to do two separate things, the licenses and terms you are granting are different. I don't see a reason why there should be only one document if there are clearly two different modes of operation, and you are only operating in one of those two modes at a given time. This allows you to properly write documents that clearly lay out the terms of each of the modes without worrying about simultaneously considering the other mode. It could be one document, but there should be a very clear break between the two "OR" sections. The two-license approach is best used if you let users choose between two well known licenses (what I was trying to find a way to do). But if you're writing your own, then it doesn't matter. Just don't try to do both at the same time - write two clearly distinct sections so there isn't any possible bleedover of rights from one to the other.

Assuming we take a Dual License Approach, how do we know which license each user is operating under?
You don't need to know which one they are operating under the same way you don't need to know which option they choose if it is a single document. I was wrong in bringing up that have a single document makes it harder to know which mode you are in. But if you have a single document, how do you know which terms the user accepted?

Quote
Quote
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

I agree. There is no reason why more than one license should exist. Having more than one makes it unnecessary and complicated. No one is going to read a license if they don't believe in copyright. Do "pirates" read the FBI warning?

Pirates read the FBI warning, don't believe it is valid, and end up getting fined or jail time. You are already making more than one license, you already have two license modes that you are trying to smash together as one. It's much less complicated to have to clear distinct modes rather than trying to decipher a single document that covers two cases simultaneously.

The two license solution works best if they are well known licenses, or close derivatives of well known licences (e.g., adding a clause to BSD-3 or modifying GPL). If you do that, it is cleaner to have two separate licenses. But you're right, if you custom write your own license it doesn't matter what you do as long as it is clear that there are two modes of operation and the user has to choose between those two licenses.

In the end, my opinion is non-professional. I think the language of the license should not be written by non-professionals. We can come up with a guidance document, but the actual language should be written by a lawyer. That's why when people ask how they should write their own license, the answer universally is "don't, use an existing one or find a lawyer."
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 #89 on: January 18, 2014, 02:53:20 pm »

so you're ok with people taking the protoshares code and removing the social consensus as long as they keep it trade secret? That seems like the worst of both worlds. If I was a company, i'd spin-off an LLC that forks code, makes changes and keeps the changes trade secret without giving anything back to the community, and I'd be protected by your license.

the license should be left in and intact. taking the code means you accept the license terms so if you allocate the required % to PTS holders then all is well, you are not obligated to tell us the key changes that made your product unique. But if you are well versed with this community you'll see that the majority of us do not touch products whose source we cannot review.


Quote
Because even if they don't follow copyright, the courts of their jurisdiction do. The parenthesis was for our own clarification, that would not actually show up in the license because courts don't care if you don't follow copyright. Therefore, we need something that will do what I3 wants but using language courts would uphold. The strong copyleft was just there to ensure that third parties would be forced to disclose code/cease usage if they turned hostile.

Unless there is a world government, jurisdiction is not something we can control. We simply put terms that we see applicable in most jurisdictions. It's counter productive to start looking at individual jurisdictions. even governments know there is a limit to enforcement, kinda why tax havens exist and little can be done. One thing this license should not become is a hodge-podge of technical law, it becomes too complicated for the average person to understand.

Quote
Because you're trying to do two separate things, the licenses and terms you are granting are different. I don't see a reason why there should be only one document if there are clearly two different modes of operation, and you are only operating in one of those two modes at a given time. This allows you to properly write documents that clearly lay out the terms of each of the modes without worrying about simultaneously considering the other mode. It could be one document, but there should be a very clear break between the two "OR" sections. The two-license approach is best used if you let users choose between two well known licenses (what I was trying to find a way to do). But if you're writing your own, then it doesn't matter. Just don't try to do both at the same time - write two clearly distinct sections so there isn't any possible bleedover of rights from one to the other.

I can just say that it is one thing, we are trying to make it difficulty for IP entities to operate this code for profit.

Quote
You don't need to know which one they are operating under the same way you don't need to know which option they choose if it is a single document. I was wrong in bringing up that have a single document makes it harder to know which mode you are in. But if you have a single document, how do you know which terms the user accepted?

We know because it will be clear as day if they have honoured the license at the very first block. Public release means you have honoured it anyway.

Quote
Pirates read the FBI warning, don't believe it is valid, and end up getting fined or jail time. You are already making more than one license, you already have two license modes that you are trying to smash together as one. It's much less complicated to have to clear distinct modes rather than trying to decipher a single document that covers two cases simultaneously.

The two license solution works best if they are well known licenses, or close derivatives of well known licences (e.g., adding a clause to BSD-3 or modifying GPL). If you do that, it is cleaner to have two separate licenses. But you're right, if you custom write your own license it doesn't matter what you do as long as it is clear that there are two modes of operation and the user has to choose between those two licenses.

In the end, my opinion is non-professional. I think the language of the license should not be written by non-professionals. We can come up with a guidance document, but the actual language should be written by a lawyer. That's why when people ask how they should write their own license, the answer universally is "don't, use an existing one or find a lawyer."

The very structure you were against in the beginning is the one you are stating now. I had put a Commons and non-commons section, make it infinitely easy for a person to pick one.

lol, you cant modify the GPL.

As i said initially, this is a unique situation and requires a unique solution. attempted hack jobs just will not cut it.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.