On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is > > "different" than contracts. If it's a "supplementary legal code", it > > described a set of usages to follow. If that's what you call a > > contract, it's a tautology to say all SLCs are contracts...? Maybe > > I'm missing your distinctions here. > > I consider something to be contract-like if it works as an agreement > between a set of people, enforced via SHALL-like mechanisms (and > eventually via the courts/Referee). Typically contracts have text and > often internal state, but those aren't really requirements. > > Something like the first version of Promises (effectively, Agencies > that posted a fixed message, and for which the ability to sue them > could be traded) would be an example of an agreement system that's > clearly different from Contracts; they couldn't meaningfully have > internal state, they could (but weren't) be used to form the basis of > an economy, etc..
Ah, I see (I think). Closest we probably came were Bonds and Bond issues, which were very similar to the original Promises. Some of the contests didn't have Shalls, but were "enforced" by CAN and CANNOTs, with CFJ interpretation of course. I'm not seeing how Organizations are any different though? It cloaks things in "appropriate" changes of switches to different text values, but that's just amending legal codes just the same...?
