We use the excellent npms.io API to get a metric about how well maintained is the repository, its code quality and popularity. Then we sum all stars in the repositories you're using and multiply these by npms.io metric. Finally we calculate that for every 100 stars a maintainer spends 1 hour per week on the project.
For example: (number of stars️ x npms.io metric / 100) x price hour
Hell, no!
I'm pretty sure that the total value is way higher than we think.
Every day private companies are trusting more and more in Open Source projects that are not properly maintained due to a lack of financial support. Problems like left-pad, event-stream or 1337qq-js are just the tip of the iceberg.
Sponsors are peanuts.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Licensing models work pretty well for big Open Source projects that are usually behind a company.
There are thousands of small Open Source projects that are being used and nobody knows that they're using it. Still, the developers behind those libraries have to maintain a fragile ecosystem for free and private companies are in risk that those libraries stop being maintained, transferred ownership to potential hackers or worst.
I do not have a correct answer here. Maybe a royalty system might be a good idea, but the music industry royalty system has been a failure.
NO.
I think that companies obtaining an economic benefit by using heavily Open Source projects should compensate economically those projects.
No. There are a lot of Open Source projects that have enterprise models to get a return.
I love Open Source. I've created and contributed to Open Source projects for the last 13 years, and I'll keep doing it. I'm just worried about its future.
You can create an issue on this repository.