You're right that open source in itself is not a business model, but as a community it tends to have a similar set of ways of monetising. But I disagree OSS pr

You're right that open source in itself is not a business model, but as a community it tends to have a similar set of ways of monetising. But I disagree OSS produces better quality than commercial, because the two don't always equate. What you're likely referring to as high quality (Firefox, Android, Chromium, Linux, Gnome, etc..) all have massive commercial backing. They are commercial products without a doubt. There's a ton of stuff that isn't commercial software like GCC or GNU tools but these aren't necessarily high quality unless you're capable of using them. That is, OSS is good quality for those who are likely developers or otherwise technically inclined. If we take it back to the context of open publishing models, we have to make sure we can build a business model that works for everyone, and not a subset niche of readers. I really don't believe there's a solution. As much as it pains me to say, I think diversity of revenue sources across the industry make for the best option - being ads, subscriptions and government entities all in the same market, which is basically what we have now. Much of the minute details of the status quo need to change, but I believe this is it for traditional* news publishing. *I think independent influencers and creators who are funded directly by fans are likely the biggest shake up, but that's still just a subscription and at much smaller scale.