Why would this be implemented, though? The author talks about how companies don't pay OSS maintainers because they don't have to. But they often pay registry m

Why would this be implemented, though? The author talks about how companies don't pay OSS maintainers because they don't have to. But they often pay registry maintainers because they do have to (or they have to run their own, which they don't want to, so they pay). But why would the registry set up a system to pay maintainers? They don't have to, so why give up a part of their revenue stream? Either the registry's aims are profit, and they wouldn't want to do that, or their goal is to charge for operating costs to keep the lights on, and they wouldn't have the spare revenue to pay maintainers. The bottom line is the same: if someone has to pay for something, and there are no alternatives (or the alternatives are costly in other ways), then they will pay. If they don't have to pay, then they won't. If registries get developers to upload their code without paying them to do so, why would they voluntarily pay them?