I think this is a really interesting thought about using package managers, although I would want to consider a few different models. Trying to just break down

I think this is a really interesting thought about using package managers, although I would want to consider a few different models. Trying to just break down the problem a bit: 1. End users don't necessarily donate. This is plausibly due to friction, that it's not worth / risky managing a bunch of small donations. 2. Corporations / Large users, are not well structured to make lots of small donations. The engineers selecting software are disconnected from finance, and pushing through payments is a barrier, with likely some exceptions that can be noted (like companies with individual $ allocations per engineer that they can direct). Linking this to distribution / hosting services to me makes a lot of sense. I don't agree with the licensing model suggested. Something more like Youtube premium immediately jumped out at me, where I pay x dollars a month to the service, and a portion of that get's split up and allocated to the content creators. On youtube, this sounds somewhat equitable, as I understand it to be a distribution by watch time. On the package manager / software side, this seems way more difficult to allocate in an equitable way. I like the core of the idea, that if you want to donate, you point your distribution at a service that tracks usage and divides/allocates revenue. And that service manages the allocation of donations, so reduce the friction on individuals and companies, and see the funding for opensource go up.