I like the NLnet/German Sovereign Tech fund model that has emerged in the last few years. Maintainers go and apply for funds from these disbursers. The disbursers are not a software registry, instead their role is to provide accountability and traceability for taxpayer money to fund public internet infrastructure. My experience working with NLnet has been very positive.
I agree with the fine article's criticism that most companies don't pay, but also I think that's not as pressing of problem so long as tax-based funding is in place.
I think this article presents a good rebuttal to this model — foundations will never pay the long tail, and sometimes the payout may not even be all that substantial for them to bother. The model in the article has the benefit of being automatic and applies to all packages that actually get used by for-profit companies
I like the NLnet/German Sovereign Tech fund model that has emerged in the last few years. Maintainers go and apply for funds from these disbursers. The disbursers are not a software registry, instead their role is to provide accountability and traceability for taxpayer money to fund public internet infrastructure. My experience working with NLnet has been very positive.
I agree with the fine article's criticism that most companies don't pay, but also I think that's not as pressing of problem so long as tax-based funding is in place.
reply