I think it's an interesting challenge with FOSS infrastructure in general, and I'm surprised it isn't more of an issue. Docker's storage is heavier than most,

I think it's an interesting challenge with FOSS infrastructure in general, and I'm surprised it isn't more of an issue. Docker's storage is heavier than most, but what about other repositories like maven central, and npm? There must be significant costs associated with running those. These tools are all the backbone of modern software dev, and need a business model. It's reasonable that consumers should pay for the benefit. I think Docker have screwed the execution of this transition, but the overall pattern of "someone has to pay" is one I support. Personally, I pay for Docker. I use it every day, and get value from it. The argument that the OP makes is really valid though - OSS needs distribution channels, which need to be funded - and expecting the publisher to pay for this isn't always appropriate. I'd like to see something like the equivalent of CNCF which I can buy a subscription from, and it funnels money to the comapnies and developers that keep me in a job -- almost a Spotify model for OSS and it's supporting infrastructure.