Not really talking exactly to the topic, but I recently went to use an open source project which said something like "this is open source software under a permissive license, but if you use it commercially you have a social obligation to financially support it".
It's probably important to note that it was web-facing code so it's public information if you are using it, which is encouragement to pay, BUT I still felt that they were striking an explicit bargain with me - use it commercially and you must pay - I liked that.
I thought this was a really good way of putting it - use it, it is free, but you are in fact obligated to support it financially if you use it commercially.
Again on another slight tangent, I think open source developers tend not to be business savvy and do things like say "pay what you think it is worth", or they ask for "tips" - these are good ways to get nothing. If you want people to pay something then you must set the price expectation clearly in the mind of the buyer/user.
Answering myself with another slightly off topic point - I wonder if a public register of financial support to open source projects would encourage more of it?
For example, if payments went through github for verification, and there was a public list to see the rankings of which companies give the most to which open source projects.
We could then see for example how Amazon which makes billions from open source, contributes (? $0) to open the open source projects that it packages and sells as services.
A lot of companies want to support projects without advertising that fact. Sony spent a seven-digit amount on open source software while doing things like contributing code via shell companies in order to avoid revealing what tools they were building their products around. I've received more than one email saying "this patch fixes a bug PLEASE DON'T TELL ANYONE IT CAME FROM ME".
Amazon has chosen for some reason to avoid advertising their open source contributions, but they absolutely do make contributions. Would it be nice if they contributed more? Sure. But that's true of every company.
If the goal however is to get companies to contribute more then the simultaneous applauding/shaming of a public donations registry is likely to encourage some companies to contribute because they like to be seen as good corporate citizens and not poor corporate citizens.
I can imagine for some companies it would be a matter of corporate pride to advertise their "projects financially supported" page, perhaps even as part of their recruiting effort to advertise how developer-centric they are.
github is the logical home for this, and indeed it is in the interests of github to do it - open source projects are far more likely to want to host on github if it has a public donations registry that, due to its public nature, actually works.
Is it really good idea to give github defacto monopoly power? This would make it much harder for github competitor to arise and business competition is a good thing.
Especially since as politics and culture tend to be more and more polarized, you don't want one company with that much power.
On the other hand, imagine if it really worked and money poured in to support open source projects - it would be transformative for the lives of many open source developers.
Github did populist political decisions in the past. They will move from "united meritocracy of Github" to full sjw and back in blink of eye.
They do a lot of good for open source, but I would not trust them not to close project due to political reasons - especially under pressure. They are not the pick of a company I would do for project that aims to "shame" companies/individuals when they misbehave.
How would you count companies like Facebook that do open source directly - by releasing it and submitting patches. Facebook pays to facebook in order to get credit?
The fact is, companies and academia pay for open source development more then we are willing to admit - by having own employees do it. This gives them absolute support contract under their control so to speak.
It's probably important to note that it was web-facing code so it's public information if you are using it, which is encouragement to pay, BUT I still felt that they were striking an explicit bargain with me - use it commercially and you must pay - I liked that.
I thought this was a really good way of putting it - use it, it is free, but you are in fact obligated to support it financially if you use it commercially.
Again on another slight tangent, I think open source developers tend not to be business savvy and do things like say "pay what you think it is worth", or they ask for "tips" - these are good ways to get nothing. If you want people to pay something then you must set the price expectation clearly in the mind of the buyer/user.