[Dev Chat Followup] Input on a new license for EteRNA content

(1) So is it the case that research & techniques published in journals are in public domain? I’m not sure about things like player written scripts, unless our EULA specifies that and the player has agreed to the EULA.

While posting on the internet is a form of publishing, determining who is the owner is key. And it sounds like from Scassa’s work that may be defaulted in some cases to the end user and not to Stanford, so it would have to be codified & released with informed consent through some kind of EULA.

As mentioned elsewhere, and by LFP6, CC is not appropriate for protecting software.

(2) It looks like my next step is to look at the Rosetta & Foldit licenses. In the meantime, yes repository separation with clear licensing terms per ownership of the repository is advisable.

If the code is to be noncommercial, then open source options may not be usable as is [see exploration below], but perhaps usable aspects of them could be adopted and modified.

Charging for-profit entities for use via licensing is better than outright sale of xyz research, because licensing offers finer control over terms, and opportunity for updating those licensing terms as the landscape evolves.

For example, it is better for Stanford / Eterna / Players to remain the sole owner[s] of our IP, such that production partners are only licensing access according to the terms of our agreements, and explicitly do NOT receive transferred “ownership” of our IP. 

In other words, there is a distinct difference between what it means to license out access vs. what it means to sell ownership over a piece of data, and we can retain more control by creating explicitly defined license agreements, per client if need be. Legal can comment more specifically than I can on the subtleties here.

(3) I’m very appreciative that we have community and dev support for open access of the research. I would love to keep our research owned by the global community in the pursuit of the highest good.

There are some [I’m sure non-exhaustive] complexities with regard to a few considerations about licensing, which I’ll outline below:

A. Commercial Use

Open source and what it means in the context of commercial ventures.

It’s not all good or all bad. In some ways open source inherently defends and promotes commercialization diversity; in other ways market share can be limited, but is that even a concern for us?

It appears you can use AGPL and other flavors of GPL for commercial purposes, with the specific restrictions as defined in the particular license:

“Both the AGPL and the MIT license only address redistribution and have no restrictions at all regarding how you use the software. Neither forbids any form of commercial activity.

The only restriction is that the AGPL forces you to publish any code changes you make. So when you change the software to add support for displaying advertisement, you will have to publish these changes.”

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/237078/open-source-social-network-allowing-advertisin…

One of those restrictions in GPL is for example that you cannot require all end users to pay you a fee in the case that you sell your product to a person who then chooses to distribute your product for free to other users:

"If I distribute GPL’d software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions

This means that it would be difficult to control the market for the product, since anyone with ability to go into production could potentially distribute it for free, or for sale:

"If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?

You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLCommercially

B. Definition of "User"

A key difference between AGPL and GPL appears to be how “users” are defined, which changes who the license applies to:

“For the GPL you only need to provide the source code to people to whom you distributed the object code, not to the general public (the GPL does allow them to give away the source to anyone). For the AGPL you must also provide the source to “all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network”. i.e. users of your web site.”

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1960802/can-i-use-libraries-licensed-under-agpl-for-commercial-pu…

C. Derivative Works & Sharing Source Code

Open source literally means our source code is required to be released, particularly when derivative works are created. This inherently means that any code licensed under a GPL flavor or otherwise open source license, will require even commercial ventures and licensees to release modifications they make at minimum to other “users”, depending on how the license is written. ( If I understand? ) 

I assume this is in alignment with our stated mission to go open access with as much as possible, but for clarity it should be understood that if there are any circumstances under which xyz research or source code needs protection, then that would have to be stipulated, since the licenses discussed thus far involve specifically making the source code available, even in commercial applications.

And as mentioned, who is a “user” also depends on how the license is written.

If “user” is defined as the general public, or if the whole license is granted by default as open source software, then any clause stipulating that source code must be shared with licensees means that even if a commercial venture is permitted, any new source code produced in the process of that venture must be released to other “users” , depending on how that is defined.

This may or may not be desirable [please feel free to chime in here], depending on exactly what we are doing with any commercial venture. 

For example, if we invest time & resources into refining and developing xyz piece of IP into a product, and we use a GPL license, does that mean that any changes we make to the IP in the process will require us to release the new source code to pre-existing licensees / users [per however that is defined in our license]? Since derivative works will inherit the rules of this license?

I’m not sure I have a decisive opinion on whether or not it is desirable to protect our source code or open source it. I like the idea of open access as we’ve been doing with paper publications, and lean towards that as my preference. And I also see complexities that we should at least be aware of in moving forward either way. 

So let’s examine some pros & cons…

Pros of using a GPL flavor license requiring open sourcing of [derivative] works [in commercial applications]: 

  • Even if we partner with xyz company to assist in production, they will be bound by the license to release to us and anyone defined as a “user” any modifications that they make. 
  • Also, [x]GPLs tend to have wording that protects against some or all patenting of source or derivative works, preventing our original IP from being materially used in an attempt to circumvent the original license. 
  • By keeping the research open source, we maintain the respect and participation of the global research, scientific, and technology communities which value and are in mutual pursuit of cures to countless diseases, certainly more than we can do just on our own anyway.

Cons of open sourcing derivative works are similar to going the explicative patent route vs. more opaque publication / prior art defense of IP:

  • In releasing our source code publicly, even with rules protecting the IP codified in the license, we will still have essentially released our schematics and trade secrets publicly, and controlling that in practice will require legal enforcement. 
  • In other words, it’s easier to protect IP with walled gardens and black boxes than to release it and chase down people who violate the license. 
  • Some corporate / production interests find open source intimidating due to a perception that it may impede their ability to monetize and lock down the market for xyz product, and it appears that stipulating restrictions on ability to sell derivative works is not in the spirit of open source:

“Question:

I want to release the framework under a license that specifies that the framework is open-source, free, and cannot be sold. However, the framework can be used in commercial products, … [further conditions]

Answer:

You can get such a license written, if you really like, but I’d rather you didn’t call it open source. The Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source requires that other parties be able to sell the software. Therefore, you’ll be confusing people.

If you want a specific sort of license that fills particular requirements, I’d suggest getting a lawyer. There won’t be a Free Software/Open Source license ready for you to use. If you’re willing to allow your stuff to be sold as long as it stays Free/Open Source, look into copyleft licenses like the GPL family. LGPL is probably what you want for the framework, since an LGPLed DLL can easily fit into any sort of license scheme. You probably want a GPL version for the app, and I’d suggest the Version 2 or any later version for maximum compatibility.

The GPL requires that all derivative works be licensed under the GPL. It is possible to sell GPLed software, but it’s impractical to sell GPLed shrinkwrap software since anybody buying it can legally share with the rest of the world. If that’s what you really want, or are willing to settle for, the GPL will work for you. The LGPL works much the same, but allows linking to other software regardless of license.”

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/84144/mix-three-different-licenses-for-an-open-source…

D. Gated Licensing

With or without [x]GPL open source code license terms, an alternative approach to carte blanche public license access is the traditional licensing path for protecting IP, where you gate access to a license by specifying exactly which groups of users have which levels of access. 

For example:

  • user group A: specifically defined free access to the general public
  • user group B: specifically defined free & / or discounted access to academic institutions
  • user group C: specifically defined fee based access to production / corporate / for profit interests ( which itself may be tiered depending on the size of the organization & their intentions / industry / etc. )

By combining clearly defined user groups or classes in the license, and gating access, we can clarify which license terms apply to which people & applications of which IP. It’s tedious to be specific, but will enable greater flexibility.

This means that much like each type of IP has a specific kind of license, each type of user group has specific levels of access / permission, or even a specific kind of license per user type / IP combination. It sounds complex but it’s not too hard to wrap your head around if you just pick one place to start and branch out the options. Think of it as a logic table for licensing. :) 

So we would:

  • Define the licenses that apply to each type of IP
  • For each type of IP, define the terms that apply to each user group. This may take the form of different licenses per user group, or simply involve modifications within the license of each group’s definition & permissions.

E. Human Rights

Some of my colleagues developed CGPL, which includes the Declaration of Human Rights in the license, and protections against patenting. I like the idea of contractually binding users of our research to some basic standards of decency, since one of my primary concerns with both CC and open source is the end use of the research, depending on who gets their hand on it. 

While of course we can’t enforce these rules for those who would not listen anyway, any deterrent and legal standing is always a step in the right direction, and taking a stand for human rights is something we are well positioned to set a good example for. As with the other licenses we could use all, or modify as needed. 

http://cgpl.org/the-license

F. Custom License

I don’t know any of these licenses word for word, and even if I did it is unlikely that any of them are 100% suitable for all of the scenarios on our plate.

So whatever licenses we decide are most appropriate for each IP & user group, need to go through a couple stages of review:

  • Review of the licenses ourselves, keeping what is appropriate and removing what is not, per IP category / user group
  • Review of our modifications by a legal team

Okay this is probably enough to process for now. And please anyone do correct me if I have any misunderstandings.

And my next task [hahaha since I said that several posts ago I think] is to review Foldit & Rosetta licenses in the context of this conversation. But I think it is helpful that we rounded out the idea first of what we want, before being influenced by it, so I think the conversation has been very helpful, thanks to all! :slight_smile:

Good point they will read the small print indeed as we all should. So the more detail the better with contracts.

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the license discussion at the community chat today!

Here is the transcript:

http://eternawiki.org/wiki/index.php5/2015.09.18_Community_Chat

Summary of Community Chat Perspective

It sounds like we have community support for:

  • Implementing whatever license structure devs & Eterna legal team determine that we need to keep our research going, and move into production for Eterna Medicine goals.

  • Support for a human rights clause. 
    And it sounds like we have questions about:

  • Non-profit vs For-profit ( which one are we to pursue in production relationships - is this only a tax classification matter, or are there compatibility issues to consider with the origin of our initial grant funding? i.e. Did we accept any grants that prohibit for-profit use of the research or derivative integrations / applications of the research? )

  • Commercial vs non commercial ( as it also relates to previously accepted grants, pre-existing licenses, and future production partnerships )

  • Will getting future grants be affected by the license we choose? ( regarding profit / commercialization ) If so, can we support continued research only with grants that permit commercial / for profit use and/or or funding through partnerships without such grants?

Human Rights

As I mentioned, my colleagues developed CGPL, which I can get into discussing more at a future juncture if there is interest. It is based on GPL but with some key differences. The first of which being that it includes the Declaration of Human Rights, and the second being that unlike GPL, CGPL derivatives don’t require all sublicenses to also be under / compatible with CGPL terms. ( If I understand correctly, and if so it would still be good to get some additional consultation and legal advice on the pros and cons of this. ) 

I’m not attached to using CGPL in part or in full, it’s an option if it makes sense. And if not, we don’t even use CGPL for all our own software since it is specifically for open sourced projects. So if we want a more locked down license, what we do is include the Declaration of Human Rights as a clause and appendix in our other custom commercial licenses, and also clauses that stipulate restrictions on using the software for specific categories of nefarious purposes.

So I will be happy as long as some aspect of human rights is considered and integrated into our end license structure. The Declaration of Human Rights is an excellent start:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Transitioning from CC to x License

Another big question is whether we can sell licenses to software built using pieces of research that was originally published under CC non commercial share alike license.

My understanding after consulting with some colleagues who work on open source and commercial licenses, is that we cannot remove a license that has been given, however the copyright holder can issue a new license under other terms to anyone they like, as long as they hold the copyright. The reason for this being that a license is different than copyright. i.e. the owner of the copyright can create and define whatever licenses they want.

A small disclaimer break to keep in mind that we all acknowledge none of us are lawyers, and fact checking any and all statements made by any of us in this thread with legal is necessary before moving forward. But for the sake of discussion and trying to untangle our options in order to be as prepared as possible for those conversations, I will continue.

:slight_smile:

EULA & Copyright Transfer

So if the above is confirmed to be the case, then to apply pre-existing Eterna research currently under CC license to a new license, the copyright holders of the specific content will have to give permission to use a new license. 

It sounded like we have general consensus supporting this during the chat, but the actual gathering of this permission will have to be on a per user basis. 

We have already discussed having a EULA or some such agreement for a number of reasons, and in this we could codify exactly what kinds of content users release under which licenses. For example, scripts, puzzle / lab designs, strategy market submissions, etc. 

The key being to politely ask for copyright with clear explanation about why, and how it will be used, so that everyone gives informed consent.

Algorithms & Languages

An additional consideration to discuss with the Eterna legal team is that it is not advisable to attempt copyright of algorithms and languages, because they are too close to nature or mathematics. 

And that it is therefore a stronger approach to create a piece of software with a demonstrable process, and specific steps, rather than algorithms or anything small enough to be an equation ( with the amusing confusion that anything can be represented as an equation… so it is a bit of where do you draw the line, but in court patent wars it tends to lean in favor of high specificity of the process to its domain ).

And similarly ( if I understand correctly ) we can package an sdk, create layers or web services or software etc., but not patent / copyright / license a language. This is relevant for example to anyone wanting to create a scripting language for others to hook into various tools that are created to analyze our data, etc. 

Open Source & Commercialization

If we want to form commercial licensing agreements similar to Rosetta / Foldit relationship, and also maintain some underlying kernel of open sourced research, we could consider the Red Hat Linux model of creating value added on top of open sourced research, and then the software layers / packages / web services that are created on top of that can then have other licensing, provided it is compatible with the underlying agreements. 

This is different than the above issue with transitioning from CC to another license, but related in that it offers a method for maintaining some portion of our research as open source, while allowing for commercial licensure to various categories of partnerships.

“Users” / Licensees

  • The law sees no user, only licensor & licensee. 
  • You can define user terms, and even categories of users based on definitions within the license of different categories of licensees.
  • The licensee receives software, and the click thru license once accepted is now an active agreement.
  • When you update software, whatever license you distribute it with at that moment is what licensees operate under. However you cannot retroactively change license terms, though many people try to insert clauses claiming this power. i.e. no ‘forward compatible’ clauses
  • Licensees can hold simultaneously actively valid different licenses & different versions of software.

Open Source Code Distribution Requirements

  • For any license that says the source code is to be distributed ( like many GPL licenses ), that source code has to be provided to licensees. 
  • You can define in the license who is entitled to source code, & how it is to be distributed.
  • In determining distribution arrangements for source code, it is good to consider the overhead cost of gating access to different categories of licensees, since due to obligation to distribute source code in most GPL type licenses, if you’ve defined different levels of access to different categories of licensees, then you will have to maintain those records and distribution mechanism. Whereas a blanket free for all is simpler in terms of being able to just host the code publicly available in one free access repository.
  • As a side note, under most GPL style licenses we cannot charge for the cost of distribution to users, except for example raw costs like if it’s on a cd - but not for access to the source code itself, unless specifically stipulated for that licensee category and not otherwise prohibited by the chosen open source license.

Open Source & Competition

  • Open source does mean we don’t have market control, and business partners get wary of this because then competitors can drive the price down by distributing our work for free or charging less or otherwise competing. However, if people want to make free medicine or do a better job of production and distribution that doesn’t sound so bad overall, as long as we can keep the lights on. Determining that is beyond the scope of my current information about our prospective partnerships.
  • We can mitigate the consequences of a competitive market by adding value on top of the source code through additional layers or packages, as mentioned above in the Red Hat Linux example. Redhat is the first open source company to be worth a billion dollars on the NYSE, and is a competitor to IBM, an international company. So it is possible to be open source, while making a profit. Even if IBM is your competition, starts running redhat kernels, forks the source and makes their own profit, there can be room for everyone if everyone is adding value. Redhat does this by charging for additional value on top of the open source foundation, through providing support infrastructure, precompiled versions of the source, and off the shelf packaged solutions. People are willing to pay a premium to have access to the originator of the technology and the support contract with it. http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/how-red-hat-killed-its-core-productand-became-a-billion-doll…
  • So, we could go open source and potentially still engage in commercial relationships capable of funding future research, if we create value added components on top of the open source foundation.

Intermission 

There’s actually more to be said about open source / GPL subtleties of LGPL vs. standard GPL rules on linking, etc. But before I invest time in researching and discussing that I’d like to hear whether we’re aiming for an open source foundation or not?

Disclaimer

Just one more friendly reminder that I am a human being not an omniscient robot lawyer from planet iamalwaysright9, so obviously everything I have mentioned needs to be fact checked before being assumed, and if anyone can add clarity to any points in this conversation that would be most appreciated!

:slight_smile:

1 Like

also I found this informative:

American Chemical Society AMA 

Question
"Hi Amy, glad to see this AMA from you.
The biotech industry, particularly in this post genomic era, is known to consist of many startup successes and arguably many failures.

When it comes to starting with a basic idea from research and bringing it to a business model, what are some key elements of business that researchers are often initially unaware of when considering founding a startup?

Answer
Thanks for the question. There is huge potential for scientists and business leaders to work together in more seamless ways. Bob Langer, pioneer of drug delivery systems and human tissue engineering and founder of the Langer Lab at MIT, is a wonderful example of success at this intersection. Bob has cofounded 25 companies that have scaled to over $100 million in annual revenue. He has also licensed technology to over 250 larger pharma companies. Check out his model as an example. 

Specific to your question, one of the things underestimated by scientists (and new entrepreneurs) is the significance of funding. Startups need more funding often than they anticipate and one of the main factors related to startup failure is running out of funding. Technical transfer and patent law is another area that needs close consideration. There is huge potential in bringing research into the marketplace! Scientists and researchers need to first and foremost find good business partners."

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3e26al/american_chemical_society_ama_we_are_amy/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31111835
http://web.mit.edu/langerlab/langer.html
http://web.mit.edu/langerlab/

1 Like

You say “we”

  • Implementing whatever license structure devs & Eterna legal team determine that WE need to keep our research going, and move into production for Eterna Medicine goals.
    and “Partnering” but I think you need to define who we is and who the partners are.
    Who are we
    Who are the key we’s
    Who are the partners and how are we getting partners
    Who are the eterna legal team and how are they paid
    Where is the funding
    Who is getting the funding
    Who is doing the lab work
    Who is doing the analysis of the lab work

Has foldit done this and why not. They have come closer to producing results than eterna has.

You said this discussion has the blessings of Rhiju, I think Rhiju is not sure as to the direction  Eterna (his little monster) should next take and is asking for suggestions.

You sound like you are on track for commercialization which I feel is a fools road paved with
good intentions. You bake a good pie but lack all the ingredients.

We can’t even produce an article, how exactly are we going to do anything else.

 

Thank you for sharing your questions and concerns. It’s very helpful to have your input so that we can thoroughly examine this topic. 

Please do remember to be kind, as we’re all working together on the same team!

Thanks again for your questions, which we will consider and reply to.

:slight_smile:

There is that “we” again.

I would prefer that you start a group, call it what you want, then you can do and say whatever you want as representative of the group, but using “we” means I have
implicitly bought into your strategy which I haven’t. And once you do form the group
I will be more than happy to keep my mouth shut, you now represent the members of that group so when you say team, you mean those people in that group.
 
And, unfortunately, business, if I understand your direction correctly, isn’t kind.

 
  

Sorry for my late comments. 

I read through this long thing and I am not a lawyer and only have minimal interest in legal stuff but it sounds like people are trying to think this through.  

I only have a few concerns and a couple ideas. My biggest concern is human rights and how anything we develop can be used. I believe that anything that comes out of our research being sequences, or algorithms/bots/programs, or pretty much anything that could be used to engineer some type of whatever from our research should be held under a strict human rights clause. My interpretation of human rights is to not torture, kill, deny nourishment, withhold shelter, or prevent the exercise of their free will as well as what the UN defines human rights as. If anyone uses our work against human rights they will be subject to penalties. Whatever these penalties are I don’t know to what the limits are but I would like to see them punished under US and UN human rights laws. This applies to jacking up the cost of medicine or life saving stuff developed to prices that only the rich or well off can even come close to affording. The important thing though is that the penalty is proportionate to the crime. If someone is injured money needs to be paid and if someone is killed people need to be jailed kinda thing. Unless a penalty costs a company a lot of money they will not care about breaking the rules. 

As someone who writes software I desire that my work is able to be used for the greatest good. If I can make money off it then cool. If that money goes to Eterna instead to keep it alive then cool. My only desire is that I get credit for my code and that my code is used ethically. If my ideas are coded up into Eternabot then I want credit as the one who came up with the idea for the essence of that part of the code. I am not a fan of sharing my source code though if someone will be able to copy that and run off and change it and make money off it or use it to some negative ends without my knowledge. I may be a little paranoid but I think with legal things that is one of the times you should be a little bit. Also, until I know for sure my work can be used with Eterna Medicine im not publishing any new software or updates to software. I was told that at time of a major update you can possible update you licensing so I am going to hold out for that.

The following are a few thoughts. I think that any RNA sequence that a player comes up with should belong to them but i am really torn about what to do with the data generated. I think that the specifications of the RNA should be the IP of the designer I also believe that others in the project should be able to benefit from the knowledge gained from the analysis of the design. In that, is someone else’s analysis of that design infringement on that IP? Again I am not a lawyer but I think that a lot of this could be cleared up if we had a EULA that stipulated what was yours and what belongs to Eterna as an entity or group that you give up voluntarily. 

I think in regards to some of JR’s comments that this may be a good candidate for a steering committee. This seams like something that is serious enough to warrant it. I read that everyone sounds like they trust the devs to take care of it and this could be chaired by mostly devs with one or two players. There could be maybe some type of vote of confidence of the group since it seams like that sounds like it would be important to the Eterna devs to have the support of the players and they could run off and do their thing (reporting back along the way and of course always taking feedback).

Those are my concerns. Have a good day!

1 Like

Very good points. I agree with all those points of view. Thanks. If you guys would like for me to ask my lawyer a few questions you can formulate some questions and post them to me. I am following this thread and receive emails from it.

1 Like

Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts Jen! 

Woohoo for supporting human rights!!!

I have seen clauses that state things like any profits a company makes from exploiting IP that they have wrongly used must be relinquished to the owner of that IP. The legal team would have to speak to the solidity of that kind of clause and how to phrase it, but maybe we could state something like that, to outline clear consequences? 

It would also be good to get feedback from the legal team as to how to draw the line between giving credit and actual IP / public domain / open source ownership works. I would think that we can give credit in terms of saying who invented what, while as you say stating in the EULA exactly what the ownership or license rights are of each type of IP.

Thanks for all your hard work on developing dpat tools. I think it will be great to get the license sorted out so that people who contribute know what to expect moving forward.

Hearing what matters to you as a creator of these materials is really helpful.

:slight_smile:

The Cost of Medicine

Along the lines of what Jen said above, one reason to consider the kind of license that Eterna uses moving forward is to prevent scenarios like this: ( thanks to Eli for noting the original story after I came across the second one! )

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/big-price-increase-for-tb-drug-is-rescinded.html

It would be great to achieve balance in being able to both move into production, and to also protect our research and ensure that it is not exploited.

I don’t know if we can codify a hard upper limit on end costs charged using our research, but maybe our legal contacts know of some language in that ballpark that would set reasonable standards?

Also, hopefully having an open source license, and also publishing our research into the public domain will ensure that it can’t be locked down by one company that wants exclusive rights. 

So that way even if x company tries to overcharge for the medicine, y company would still be able to go into production using the same research, and charge a reasonable fee, thus undercutting company x and making their overpriced product obsolete. 

Thanks Astro! I just posted a couple questions that a lawyer would know better than me, above in reply to Jen, and below as a new comment.

Thanks for your participation!!

:slight_smile:

Hi all,

Don’t know who is still following this thread, but here is a crack at a plain-language EULA.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lVXRWfCc009V2hMcnxnWXTfk1O3EE2CuqKwIZIyWYEM/edit?usp=sharing

Please give feedback and comments here.

Thanks,
Ben

1 Like

I like it. I hope that the complex version has human rights in it.