[hgs3]

It sounds like Parens is proposing a centralized mutual fund for closed-source license subscriptions. I'm going to disagree and say I'd rather not have a central authority behind this. Developers should be empowered to sell closed-source licenses, support, documentation, examples, etc. themselves as individuals. As a counter proposal I'd rather have code hosting services and package managers offer better monetization tools because that is more decentralized.

[greggsy]

Agreed. Developers and consumers already have a relationship with repository platforms - it makes sense to integrate the monetisation or paid support channel there.

Can I coin the term ‘pay per pull’ (not that I think that’s the best approach)? Perhaps you could pay with a freshly minted CommitCoin?

[frizlab]

You mean this? https://tea.xyz

[greggsy]

Sort of, but baked right into the repo platform.

[vogu66]

I mean, it doesn't need to be centralised on a single entity

There was https://tea.xyz/ that does something like this, kind of, to a point, using a blockchain approach to see which packages are used. An extension of the same concept to gits would be interesting?

[nzach]

Maybe "Redhat for individuals" would be a better business plan?

You charge 20 bucks for month, and from this you pay 10 straight to OSS developers and with the other 10 you hire a team to offer a N1 level of support to your customers. You could also provide a repository of "vetted software" to prevent scenarios like the xz attack.

[justinclift]

> a central authority behind this.

Yeah, a central authority could potentially be beneficial if/while it's run by benevolent people.

But if it gets taken over by (say) political activism types, or just MBA types determined to treat it like a profit center, then it's going to turn to crap right about then. :(

[Borg3]

And it always happen likes that, sooner or later. Yet, every time people think this time its gonna be different... NOT..

The only way is decentralization...

[EricE]

Just like wikipedia :/