Re: The Bounty License

As a SaaS provider, this is an interesting approach.  I could imagine going
to an existing customer base and saying we'd like to offer feature X for $n
-- if we see enough interest, we'll build it.  When "the appropriate level"
is met, that commitment applies to the the bounty.  The company decides if
they need more or less than than the total bounty to prove market need
and/or make a long term feature investment.  In either case, they would get
a head start on the capability.

-stone

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:19 PM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:

> How would you like to see it work, Heather?
>
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: heather vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>
> Date: 10/17/18 3:24 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public
> List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: The Bounty License
>
> While I applaud this concept, it is extremely problematic, specifically in
> putting all the risk onto the content creator. Maybe that is not too much
> of a risk for a developer building code, but it is significantly different
> for a film producer.
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:19 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 23:22, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Following up with an idea on "how can we fund things in this ecosystem".
>>> The concept of bounties came up.
>>>
>>> Here's a simple concept:
>>>
>>> Release software, documentation, and specifications under a "Bounty
>>> License".
>>>
>>> The license states that the content is free for non-commercial use and
>>> sets a bounty price to transition the license into a FOSS license.
>>>
>>> For example, libvc is a Verifiable Credentials library in C++. It is
>>> under a bounty license of $50K, if the bounty is paid, it moves to BSD
>>> 3-clause license. I can imagine three companies joining in and paying
>>> that bounty because it reduces implementation risk for them, and they
>>> get the software at a fraction of the cost of developing and maintaining
>>> it themselves. The upside is that the developer is paid for their effort
>>> vs. what happens today (leeching).
>>>
>>> This is easiest for software... harder for things like documentation,
>>> videos, etc. Information that once it's out, it's out, is more
>>> difficult. So, for those items, previews are released and the full
>>> version is only released once the bounty is paid.
>>>
>>> Bounty prices would have to be above market rates... because the content
>>> creator took on considerable risk in creating the content.
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> PS: I know there are some things that may be better paid for up front,
>>> and we can still do that in parallel to the suggestion above.
>>>
>>
>> love it!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>>> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Heather Vescent <http://www.heathervescent.com/>
> President, The Purple Tornado, Inc
> Author, A Comprehensive Guide to Self Sovereign Identity
> <https://ssiscoop.com/>
> Author, The Cyber Attack Survival Manual <http://amzn.to/2i2Jz5K>
>
> @heathervescent <https://twitter.com/heathervescent> | Film Futures
> <https://vimeo.com/heathervescent> | Medium
> <https://medium.com/@heathervescent/> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/heathervescent/> | Future of Security Updates
> <https://app.convertkit.com/landing_pages/325779/>
>