> What if e.g. github reframed its project sponsorship model as something that involved getting maintainers setup with liability insurance and the ability to of

> What if e.g. github reframed its project sponsorship model as something that involved getting maintainers setup with liability insurance and the ability to offer sponsors warranty and liability for their software. I think it would be much more expensive. The developers of some library are having a hard time judging how much money somebody stakes on that library working perfectly. It might be that they'd lose an hour of work if they hit a bug, it might also be that a huge project fails with gigantic losses - it's hard to insure against that if you still want people to be able to afford it. It's much easier to buy insurance on the user side where you know the potential impact (i.e. "my wordpress site will be offline for a day" vs "the oil rig I've run calculations for could sink if there was a bug").