Can Blockchain and the BTC License Fund Health Insurance?

Can Blockchain and the BTC License Fund Health Insurance?

The BTC license hit my radar screen recently. Billed as “sexy” by the author, the permissive BTC license employs Blockchain and may signal a new trend going forward that could transform the way many developers work... and how they get their health insurance.

Background

I chair the Linux Foundation’s SPDX work group. Among other things, SPDX supports a standard license list. The following request to add a license hit the SPDX legal team’s mailing list recently:

New License/Exception Request: BTC License (BTC)

Full name: BTC License
Identifier: BTC
URL: https://gist.github.com/jhabdas/9fc645415bf277e3a1f3bc5c04083f01
OSI: Not OSI-submitted nor approved

Explanation: Verbatim copy of ISC, with updated copyright line intended to protect individual privacy and facilitate transmission of funds to creators of open source work. Example use within software provided below. 

After some open discussion on the list, the team informed the author that given the way licenses are defined in the SPDX License List, this was not a new license. Based on the SPDX  guidelines, it matches the ISC license (because the copyright is a variable in the license specification) so we won’t treat it separately. Josh Habdas, the author, understood and appreciated the speedy resolution, and that was that.

But my curiosity was piqued and I set up a call to understand more about his idea. It’s lucky Josh likes to work late, because he lives in Bali (and I don’t). He kindly took my call over Facetime after dinner while he was out and about town. We quickly reached some common ground chatting about my last blog on permissive licenses and agreed that developers are fundamentally motivated by building stuff that gets used and getting some credit for their contributions.

Can Blockchain Help Open Source Developers?

In essence, Josh has big ideas about how Blockchain can help open source developers who build great software get some remuneration to support their efforts. This is an important issue. It came to light big time in the wake of Heartbleed. Jim Zemlin, head of the Linux Foundation, immediately took it on. Realizing that a lot of very important software projects were underfunded (and therefore not secure), Jim went to a bunch of big tech companies asking for help. He showed pictures of the key figures behind these projects and observed that most couldn’t afford health insurance. The risks were clear, and in a couple weeks Jim’s efforts raised millions of dollars to support critical projects like OpenSSL.

But Jim's efforts alone don't fix the ongoing problem — how to keep valuable open source projects funded, secure and updated. This isn't just a problem for the open source community, however. Proprietary apps today include 40%, 60% or more open source. Imagine companies of the future that understand the value of key components they rely on. What if they were able to easily pass a trickle of remuneration back to the non-employee developers whose code they build on? Many trickles for popular projects might add up to enough of a river to float developers’ health insurance!

Vision for the BTC License

That’s Josh’s vision, and the first step to get there is the BTC license (BTC is the abbreviation for Bitcoin). His twist on the ISC license is to use a URL for a Blockchain wallet as part of the copyright. It still relies on developers using code to preserve the copyright statement, but allows anyone using software an easy path to get "coin" to the owner(s) of useful open source components. Right now, copyright holder names are often ambiguous, and it takes time and energy to track them down and work out how to pay them. A Blockchain wallet is unambiguous and directly addresses the payment issue. Multiple participants in a project could have shares in a wallet and work out a transparent division of spoils. Josh has made a good argument for including wallets URLs in copyright statements.

The bigger vision gets a little crazier. I’m still wrapping my head around Blockchain, but the key is to understand that it can track any asset, not just currency, and that includes software. Check out Bitpay I Made This. It lets you use Blockchain to timestamp any kind of digital content to “serve as immutable proof that the files existed at a certain point in time, which can be used to demonstrate ownership of original content.” It’s not hard to imagine every commit to an open source project being logged in that manner to create an unambiguous picture of the provenance of every line of code… in every piece of software. Josh tells me all the pieces are already in GitHub today; it’s not so farfetched.

How this all plays out, we’ll see. But the concept opens eyes to the breadth of ways that Blockchain may be leveraged in the future. And it certainly suggests a healthier future for software developers. They may be able to freelance more and still benefit from commercial application of the cool stuff they build.

 

The 2016 Open Source Year in Review - Watch Now

2 Comments
Sorry we missed you! We close comments for older posts, but we still want to hear from you. Tweet @black_duck_sw to continue the discussion.
2 Comments

MORE BY THIS AUTHOR

The Quietly Accelerating Adoption of the AGPL

| Aug 14, 2017

The AGPL (Affero General Public License) has continued to gain in popularity and is showing up frequently in modern code bases. My blog Are SaaS Companies Immune to Open Source Risk? mentioned a key concern for SaaS or Cloud companies, a class of open source licenses that includes the Affero GPL

| MORE >

3 Examples of Why Permissive Licenses Deserve a Little Respect

| Jun 21, 2017

To the extent that tech companies manage open source risks, their primary focus tends to be on reciprocal licenses and the GPL in particular. As I've discussed earlier, the potential risks of open source are broader than just license compliance. Additionally, there are other licenses to consider

| MORE >