I disagree with the premise that companies don't contribute to open-source. It's a rare open-source library that I don't contribute back to in some way, and th

I disagree with the premise that companies don't contribute to open-source. It's a rare open-source library that I don't contribute back to in some way, and that was even more true when I worked at big or rich tech companies. All software has bugs. Half the point of using an open-source library is so I can fix them! It's also strange to use "maintainers" as the worthy recipient here, since in almost every case I've seen, these people were also working for a big rich tech company, and very well paid already. The programmer in question sold his last company to Yahoo. He's got a Patreon page (hundreds of dollars a month), a GitHub Sponsor page (at least hundreds of dollars a month, and possibly much more). The software in question is a "JavaScript style guide, linter, and formatter". I don't think any company is "generating massive amounts of revenue" from a JS style linter. The GitHub page has a "gold sponsor" ($500/month) advertisement, too. The problem with advertising is that (as someone here described it recently) it's an arms race. When anyone starts using them, everyone else will struggle unless they match, and that makes life worse for everyone. Is contributing bug fixes to open-source software, plus the occasional corporate sponsor, not sufficient contribution to the community and ecosystem? What exactly is the goal here? Are we upset that developers don't earn enough money?