Radical Proposal: GitHub Should Add $1 Fee to Fund Open Source Developers

The sustainability of open source software faces a systemic challenge: critical infrastructure built by volunteers lacks reliable funding. Currently, projects rely on sporadic donations, sponsorships, or corporate patronage—a model many consider fundamentally unstable. A provocative new idea aims to address this by leveraging GitHub's position at the center of software development.

Under this proposal, GitHub would implement a mandatory $1 monthly fee per user for all organizations on its platform. These funds would accumulate in an escrow account designated as an "Open Source Fund." Distribution would be automated based on actual usage: whenever a project appears in dependency files like package.json (JavaScript), requirements.txt (Python), or potentially Dockerfile FROM instructions, its maintainers would receive micro-payments. The model draws loose inspiration from Spotify's royalty system—where plays generate revenue for artists—but acknowledges that platform's imperfections.

Crucially, the fee would be opt-out for organizations, ensuring broad participation while allowing companies to decline if they choose. Supporters argue this creates a scalable solution where funding directly correlates with real-world value. Projects like lodash, requests, or React—ubiquitous in dependency trees—would automatically benefit without maintainers needing to negotiate sponsorships or run donation campaigns.

However, significant implementation hurdles exist. Infrastructure-level projects like the Linux kernel rarely appear in dependency manifests, potentially excluding foundational tools. Defining "usage" also presents challenges: Would transitive dependencies count? How would funds reach maintainers of abandoned projects? The proposal suggests starting with explicit declarations (import statements, require calls) and expanding later. Governance is another open question—whether GitHub, a nonprofit, or a community board would oversee distribution.

This idea emerges amid growing frustration with current funding mechanisms. Platforms like GitHub Sponsors enable direct support but require maintainers to actively market themselves. Similarly, initiatives like Open Collective depend on proactive corporate participation. By contrast, an automated usage-based model could passively reward maintainers based on actual developer reliance.

While imperfect, the proposal highlights a stark reality: open source underpins trillions in economic value yet operates on precarious financial footing. Charging enterprises a nominal fee—roughly equivalent to a monthly coffee—could generate hundreds of millions annually for maintainers. For context, GitHub has over 100 million users; even partial participation would create a substantial fund.

The conversation now shifts to feasibility. Can dependency graphs reliably measure value? Should low-level projects receive special consideration? Regardless, this concept forces reevaluation of how society compensates digital public goods. As one observer noted: "Accepting the status quo means endorsing a system where essential labor remains unpaid—and that’s unsustainable for everyone."