To give room for a contract to be provided in multiple languages while eliminating ambiguity as to which is the official version.
Multi-lingual contracts must specify the prevailing language in case of dispute.
As discussed elsewhere, the official language of this Constitution is English. It may be translated into other languages, but the version that prevails in disputes is English.
Similarly, a given contract that is provided in multiple languages needs to include a statement regarding which version prevails in a dispute.
If the author doesn't specify a prevailing language, it's going to be up to the Arbitrator of the dispute to pick a version (unless the disputants agree on one). There is no way in this Discussion section to anticipate or control how that decision will unfold. For that reason it is probably a best practice for each developer to either only offer one language, or to state explicitly which language is the official and prevailing one.
Prevents the creation of positive Constitutional rights.
This Constitution creates no positive rights for or between any Members.
As described in the Design Principles of this Draft Constitution, it's important for several reasons that the Constitution not create, directly or by implication, any positive rights.
Negative rights provide the greatest freedom of action for all parties.
Negative rights can (almost) always be respected via inaction, and violations are (usually) easy to spot.
Negative rights do not create obligations for action on others and don't create a slippery slope of entitlement or a path toward transforming this chain's default token into a de facto security.
The intention of this article is to make it clear that none of the other articles, and nothing in the subordinate governing documents (BP Agreement, Arbitrator Agreement, etc.) can or should be interpreted as conferring a positive right on any Member.
Defines when a Member is a Developer. Establishes obligation of a Developer to provide a License and one or more Ricardian Contracts, and to name an Arbitration Forum for their software.
Each Member who makes available a smart contract on this blockchain shall be a Developer. Each Developer shall offer their smart contracts via a license, and each smart contract shall be documented with a Ricardian Contract stating the intent of all parties and naming the Arbitration Forum that will resolve disputes arising from that contract.
It's not clear at the Constitutional level what happens, or what should happen, in cases where code is published but no License is provided, or when no Ricardian Contract is provided. The EOSIO Software doesn't require either at the code level. Arbitrators will be required to figure out how to handle such cases.
A Member who is considering running someone's software should be wary of software offered without a clear License and without any Ricardian Contract(s).
It's certainly possible for the License terms to be referenced by, or even contained entirely within, the Ricardian Contract(s). That might be a good practice.
The purpose of this article is to clarify the relationship between the constitution and the other ricardian smart contracts on the platform.
The purpose of this article is also to protect individual autonomy, promote personal responsibility and ensure the freedom to contract.
In case of conflict between the constitution and a ricardian contract entered into by voluntary contracting parties, the ricardian contract shall take precedence between the voluntary contracting parties.
Commentary on Article
This article establishes that a particular contract entered into by voluntary parties should be superior to the constitution in case of conflict. This superiority only applies between the contracting parties and can not be enforced on involuntary third parties.
The article allows users on EOS to create their own enclaves with their own particular rules, even if those rules are in opposition to the constitution. These enclaves can exist in so far as they do not infringe on the constitutional rights of third parties who has not voluntarily joined the enclave.
Voluntary parties create a DAC where intentional false statements are allowed under certain circumstances.
One can for example imagine many online games where bluffing an misrepresentation are inherent and accepted parts of the game. In a decentralized mmorpg lying and deception between opposing teams can be an important part of the game dynamics.
Playing online RISK it is often considered within the rules of the game to make a truce in bad faith and subsequently break it. In an online poker dapp, the players might find it acceptable for a player to misrepresent his hand on the chat to mislead his opponent.
This proposed article protects the voluntary parties from being penalized for breaking the constitutional article against lying, as long as they only lie to each other within their own enclave.
Lying to parties outside the particular enclave would still infringe on the involuntary third parties constitutional rights. This is ensured by the article stating that:_ " the ricardian contract shall take precedence between the voluntary contracting parties"
Voluntary parties join a decentralized virtual world where the rules state that a purchaser who has purchased stolen goods in good faith, and has done his due diligence, will be the rightful owner of the stolen property.
One can imagine someone steals a virtual sword and sells it to a reputable vendor. An honest purchaser buys the sword in good faith, having done his due diligence. In this particular virtual community the purchaser would have legal title to the sword, and the original owner would be forced to seek reparations from either the thief or vendor. The original owner would not be able to invoke his constitutional right to property in a conflict with the purchaser, since he voluntarily forfeited this right by joining the virtual community.
Such a rule could be seen as beneficial in a particular virtual world to ensure trust in commerce.
If the stolen sword was somehow stolen from someone outside the particular virtual community, the original owner would still have legal title.
The original owner would in this case be able call upon his constitutional right to property according to the proposed Article II. In this case, the original owner would not have forfeited his right to property since he did not voluntarily join the virtual world.
Voluntary parties agree on making a DAC where decisions are made by voting. The parties agree that vote buying is accepted within the DAC.
Voluntary parties agree that for their particular smartcontract, code will be law, regardless of any claimed intentions or black swan events.
Someone might want to avoid arbitration for their particular smartcontract, or they would like to experiment with an "EOS Classic" enclave.
Design Principles of my v0.1 Draft EOS.IO Constitution - See 4.Nesting
Please see the BitSpace block producer candidacy proposal on Steemit here for a full outline of our positions and values.
This link includes our written policy of our position regarding no-payment for votes.
Chinese version here.