Exploring a proposal for a new funding model for open source software through registry fees.
As the landscape of software development continues to shift, the fundamental challenges associated with funding open source projects have become increasingly urgent. Despite the enormous reliance on these projects—fueling billions of dollars in the technology sector—many maintainers remain unpaid for their extensive contributions. What's needed is a transformative approach to ensure these invaluable resources are both supported and sustained over time.
Open source software has revolutionized the way developers build and share code. However, a troubling disconnect exists between the profit generated by companies utilizing open source projects and the compensation received by those who develop them. In fact, a staggering 60% of open source maintainers are not financially compensated for their work, according to Tidelift's survey in 2024, a figure consistent over recent years.
This fundamental imbalance raises pressing questions about the future of open source. Companies reap the benefits of utilizing free software while many maintainers burn out from the demands of ever-increasing project velocity. Consequently, the resulting equilibrium is hardly supportive, with many talented developers feeling unrecognized and underappreciated.
To comprehend this paradox, let’s draw parallels with evolutionary biology, specifically through the lens of the hawk-dove model. In this framework, hawks represent closed-source software, engaging in competitive practices, whereas doves signify open-source software that encourages collaboration and sharing. The stable outcome we've arrived at positions the open-source model as advantageous in terms of user access, yet failing to produce a sustainable financing ecosystem for maintainers.
This delicate balance has been thoroughly tested across various projects that attempted to impose fees at the licensing level, with few lasting successes. When organizations tried charging for their open-source licenses, they faced inevitable forks—competent copies offered for free, thus undermining their financial models. Disruption has consistently favored free access over gated content, as evidenced by the contrasting landscapes of Android and iOS.
The free model persists, but it's worth noting that the developers behind the code often shoulder the burden of maintenance without recompense. In 2023, a Sonatype study revealed that only 11% of 1.2 million open-source projects were actively maintained, putting additional pressure on the small pool of dedicated maintainers.
A promising avenue for supporting open source lies within the registration and management of code dependencies. Current models capture considerable revenue primarily in supply chain management, with companies such as JFrog and Docker successfully capitalizing on this segment. JFrog's revenues reached $532 million in 2025, primarily by providing concrete, reliable access to open-source libraries.
Companies willingly pay for reliable access and assurance that their dependencies are secure, yet these funds do not trickle down to the maintainers. The architecture of the open-source supply chain incentivizes an entirely different player, leaving developers receiving little to none of the revenue generated from their contributions.
As developers increasingly rely on registries for access to the software they need, it poses a unique opportunity to rethink how funds are managed and distributed. Consider this: what if registries charged corporate users for access and a fixed percentage of the revenue generated went directly to the maintainers of the projects that businesses depend on? This could reshape the existing dynamics and provide a consistent revenue stream for the creators.
The proposed funding model would be divided into three core components: charging companies for registry access, distributing the funds directly back to maintainers, and ensuring the execution of payments through the existing financial infrastructures of the registries.
Firstly, registries already have infrastructure in place to meter usage. Implementing tiered subscription models analogous to those offered by JFrog and Docker would ensure corporate customers are paying directly for access to these valuable resources. The model would be targeted yet accommodating, providing no-cost access for individual developers and small teams while instituting a monthly fee for larger companies utilizing the services.
Secondly, a fixed slice of the revenue would ensure that funds are allocated directly to the maintainers whose work supports the infrastructure. This could be calculated based on dependency trees, where maintainers earn based on how many paying customers utilize their projects. It would eliminate the need for applications or grant proposals—payouts could be automated and distributed in a transparent manner.
Finally, this model could be executed through the existing registries, which already manage the data required for revenue collection and distribution. The challenge of identifying paying companies and project maintainers would be streamlined by utilizing current records within registries like npm, PyPI, and Docker Hub.
For such a model to succeed, transparency and accountability will be essential. Software maintainers must be assured that registry operators are fairly distributing funds, while companies must recognize that their contributions directly support the continued development of essential tools.
There remains a pervasive concern that companies will resist paying more for their existing resources. However, recent trends demonstrate a willingness to invest in streamlined solutions that ensure consistent quality and reliability. Furthermore, businesses should be informed that funding the supply chain is an investment in their own operational integrity.
Ultimately, this approach reflects a changed narrative, positioning open source not as a free-for-all but as a valuable, professionally managed ecosystem that obligates companies benefiting from these projects to contribute effectively. The open-source community can thrive if this shift is recognized as a mutual benefit wherein all stakeholders share responsibilities and rewards.
The conversation surrounding open source has been dominated by pleas for fairer compensation and sustainability. Rather than simply appealing to the generosity of corporations, it's vital to propose actionable solutions that can be integrated into the already existing frameworks.
The ascendancy of AI, as it relies heavily on open source contributions, adds urgency to this conversation. With AI technology rapidly evolving, code creation and dependency management are set to become even more crucial. Developers are not powerless; they can enact change by harnessing their collective power to innovate how these systems function.
Ultimately, the sustainability of open source code relies on creating an ecosystem where creators are valued and compensated appropriately. By implementing a model that charges companies at the registry layer while ensuring developers receive their fair share, we can usher in a golden age for open source that empowers developers to innovate without the shadow of burnout.