This is an interesting idea. Making open-source more sustainable definitely requires an aggregation of resources. I think something like what you’re describing would help make it easier for maintainers to collect donations, and for more people to give them, so it would be worth exploring.
I think also, in a good way, it might actually cut down on forks and "splinter" projects. That is, ideally, someone would be more likely to stay and contribute if they know there is revenue to be share with them (as opposed to starting from zero).
I'm certainly in favor of new ideas and experimenting, etc. But when it comes to OSS I feel there are times when two or three rock solid products would be better than six or seven or more.
Comments
This is an interesting idea. Making open-source more sustainable definitely requires an aggregation of resources. I think something like what you’re describing would help make it easier for maintainers to collect donations, and for more people to give them, so it would be worth exploring.
I think also, in a good way, it might actually cut down on forks and "splinter" projects. That is, ideally, someone would be more likely to stay and contribute if they know there is revenue to be share with them (as opposed to starting from zero).
I'm certainly in favor of new ideas and experimenting, etc. But when it comes to OSS I feel there are times when two or three rock solid products would be better than six or seven or more.