I think it's disingenuous to think every open source software component should be a VC funded company operating off support contracts to get any reward. That's essentiality the only avenue to "greatness" right now.
In a proper world, VCs would recognize all their darling, bespoke, hand-picked companies depend on the public infrastructure of open source (and unaffiliated) developers to super accelerate the growth of their portfolio companies.
In a sane world, VCs would see it's in their best interest to create a "public benefit" pool of cash where they fund open source developers to create, maintain, and grow open source projects/platforms at full time senior-engineer salaries. Such a pool of cash (contributed to by multiple VC firms) would be administered by a neutral third party (to avoid nepotism as VCs are wont to do) and have "board-like" oversight and project prioritization (maybe each portfolio company gets X votes towards ranking which features to create next) so resources (cash/salary/infrastructure) go towards projects companies are using and needing to grow.
A different option is to encourage VC-funded companies to set aside, say, 5% to 15% of each round for hiring full time open source developers. Open source developers working at a company would be loyal to their open source projects first and foremost, but would accept direction and feature prioritization from the sponsoring company.
Just because something isn't a company doesn't mean it's not valuable and doesn't deserve compensation for services rendered, but in the current environment that's the only way forward until more fundamental change appears.
I think it's disingenuous to think every open source software component should be a VC funded company operating off support contracts to get any reward. That's essentiality the only avenue to "greatness" right now.
In a proper world, VCs would recognize all their darling, bespoke, hand-picked companies depend on the public infrastructure of open source (and unaffiliated) developers to super accelerate the growth of their portfolio companies.
In a sane world, VCs would see it's in their best interest to create a "public benefit" pool of cash where they fund open source developers to create, maintain, and grow open source projects/platforms at full time senior-engineer salaries. Such a pool of cash (contributed to by multiple VC firms) would be administered by a neutral third party (to avoid nepotism as VCs are wont to do) and have "board-like" oversight and project prioritization (maybe each portfolio company gets X votes towards ranking which features to create next) so resources (cash/salary/infrastructure) go towards projects companies are using and needing to grow.
A different option is to encourage VC-funded companies to set aside, say, 5% to 15% of each round for hiring full time open source developers. Open source developers working at a company would be loyal to their open source projects first and foremost, but would accept direction and feature prioritization from the sponsoring company.
Just because something isn't a company doesn't mean it's not valuable and doesn't deserve compensation for services rendered, but in the current environment that's the only way forward until more fundamental change appears.