[BatteryMountain]

So the steam devs can most likely produce a finite list of all their dependencies. They can then take a day or two to score each one with a weight. Then they use the weights to determine how to split the funds. Or they can have an open source champion person internally that takes care of relationships with opensource projects and can release funds to them as needed. Point is, lets say they accumulate $1M/year this way, it is that person's responsibility to distribute it fully back out to the community. Obviously try to keep it super simple & transparent. They can even ask game developers each quarter who they should think need money or which problems were solved well for them this round, as an extra layer of input.

[SomeUserName432]

And how would you determine that the buyer intends to play on linux, and not windows like 9x% of the buyers?

[BatteryMountain]

This extends past linux. Open source projects get used broadly regardless of runtime environment. Steam is just one open nerve ending where this could be used for good and they have the power to do so (and from what we've seen, steam seems to be a low friction company, less corpo red tape - would you trust say Ubisoft with handling this or steam?). If a game gets deployed to windows, it doesn't matter, as each game/application probably use five or ten or more open source projects regardless of where they run. It can help open source devs keep pacing with steam and game developer needs. Remember a ton of these project have upstream effects outside of gaming - its just the most obvious open nerve we can use to help open source.

[jojomodding]

You can only show the checkbox on Linux. You can add OS detection to the checkbox and have it say "support our $OS dependencies" and put that into different pots of money. You can make the checkbox say "support our Linux dependencies" and then rely on Windows people not selecting it.