Re:Show HN: Launching Sustainable License, an Alternative to...
by fire on Saturday July 23, 2022 @04:30AM
(#32201475)
I'm honestly really interested in the concept, but I have no idea how you'd consistently implement or enforce it.
The blog post's note of:
> Thanks to web3, the software can charge for usage automatically and anonymously.
is concerning as the definition of web3 being used there seems to be the one bound to cryptocurrency... is the "monetization module" going to effectively require integration with an arbitrary blockchain ecosystem, or is that just an example of one possible implementation strategy?
Most corps would avoid projects using this license if the former were to be the case, but the latter is more open ended and could be anything from a phone home with a license server to micropayments (of any kind, no judgement here).
Looking forward to learning more about you see these issues being tackled since they're not addressed in the faq as far as I can tell
Re:Show HN: Launching Sustainable License, an Alternative to...
by mrjn on Monday August 01, 2022 @02:26AM
(#32302743)
(author here -- just saw this comment)
If someone were to modify the code to not charge for the usage, that'd be a violation of the license. Sure, smaller violations might not be, but any significant violation can be enforced. This is no different from how many projects mix their proprietary code with their open source code (SSPL, Elastic license).
How the software charges for this is up to the author of the project. We used web3, you could use Stripe or anything else equally well.
Re:Show HN: Launching Sustainable License, an Alternative to...
by bren0xa on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @04:23PM
(#32157445)
How would this even be implemented into a project? The license mentions the monetization module but I see no explanation of how this would/should be implemented into a project.
Re:Show HN: Launching Sustainable License, an Alternative to...
by PhilippGille on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @02:38PM
(#32156050)
The license itself doesn't mention it if I'm not mistaken. The monetization module could be anything, like asking you for credit card details upon launch of the software and then charge per usage or time or whatever.
The blog post's note of:
> Thanks to web3, the software can charge for usage automatically and anonymously.
is concerning as the definition of web3 being used there seems to be the one bound to cryptocurrency... is the "monetization module" going to effectively require integration with an arbitrary blockchain ecosystem, or is that just an example of one possible implementation strategy?
Most corps would avoid projects using this license if the former were to be the case, but the latter is more open ended and could be anything from a phone home with a license server to micropayments (of any kind, no judgement here).
Looking forward to learning more about you see these issues being tackled since they're not addressed in the faq as far as I can tell
If someone were to modify the code to not charge for the usage, that'd be a violation of the license. Sure, smaller violations might not be, but any significant violation can be enforced. This is no different from how many projects mix their proprietary code with their open source code (SSPL, Elastic license).
How the software charges for this is up to the author of the project. We used web3, you could use Stripe or anything else equally well.
If you've further questions, please feel free to file an issue here: https://github.com/outcaste-io/sustainable-license
How to spot a dead in the water project, a guide.