I didn't mention Open Source development funding, which is something I think is inexplicably important. (You may consider it an exercise to the reader) Since I

I didn't mention Open Source development funding, which is something I think is inexplicably important. (You may consider it an exercise to the reader) Since I can't leave it to chance, here is the solution anyway: Open Source has clear benefits to a huge number of users. This is a huge positive externality. So the evaluators would be trying to measure this positive impact and reward accordingly. By reward, we should recognize money has 3 functions in society: (1) Rewards as compensation for expenses. Straightforward: compensate for whatever expenses needed to sustain himself and bring the product to society. (2) Rewards as investment for future development. This allows the person to create more of what he just did, or create something he only has proposals for so far. This is a kind of predictive compensation for expenses, diminishing risk and allowing realization without capital. (3) Rewards as Recognition. Everyone needs a signal 'I'm doing well/I'm doing a good thing/I hope I'm of value to someone'. Rewards act as recognition of this value. Today we only have social recognition and a prize here and there, which not many exist. (4) Rewards as Individualistic Motivation. This one is the primary means we are "supposed" to operate in a competitive environment. Your rewards are spent to satisfy your needs and desires as an individual. (Of course this is fine, everyone has needs and desires... although it's questionable whether one individual can have a 100000x or more the sensitivity or needs of another individual to justify massive individualist expenditure). We should hold no delusion -- we are advanced primates, and want a "banana" or "carrot" or whatever, so this should of course be taken into account. With all 4 modes of operation, society should work quite well, and individuals should be happy and motivated.