[carlosjobim]

I still don't really understand the point of view. If the open source programmer don't want to do all these boring things you mentioned, they don't have to. If somebody has a problem with that, they can fork and fix it themselves, or offer to pay the programmer to do it. The unpaid open source programmer does not have any responsibility towards anybody else. Safety and maintenance is not his responsibility, it's the responsibility of whoever is using the software. If security is crucial, then they should inspect the code or pay for audited code, for example some closed source software.

I imagine a paid open source model to be where I and other users can offer money for features or bug fixes we need. The best implementation would be that users could each pool a small amount – "pitch in" – for features. Honestly, it wouldn't even have to be open source. Let users who are willing to pay developers have their say and make independent programming more sustainable. There are endless good consequences. For example, backwards compatibility might not be interesting for the open source programmer. With a bunch of users willing to pay for this, then it might become worth his time. Or language support, different platform support, special integrations.

And if the original developer is not interested in any paid work, then other programmers could fork and implement. Honestly, I think that users shouldn't even be allowed to raise an issue on Github or such places without offering monetary compensation. Fork or pay or die should be the motto.