>TBH, enforcing maintenance fee for anyone who makes revenue feels unfair.

I have terrific news! You can start your own open source project that people use to make money and don't contribute back to.

>Imagine indie developer or someone who wants to try and create something but without much revenue (eg 1k / year). so 10% of your revenue goes to the installer of your product...

I have terrific news! That indie developer can create their own installer or start their own open source project that others can make money off of and not contribute back to.

>I'm all in sponsoring open-source and investing in software but part of being sustainable is making it accessible.

I have some bad news here. 99% of people aren't all in on this. We see time and time again that even mission critical open source projects struggle to get people to fund it. The projects that do tend to survive are the ones that build businesses around the project. It's very rare to have an open source project be well funded solely for existing with no business around it. Of course there are exceptions, but that model has failed near completely. That's the reality.

▲

rock_artist 2 days ago | parent [-]

> We see time and time again that even mission critical open source projects struggle to get people to fund it.

I think you've missed my point.

The problem (imho) is when actors that can easily pay, are avoiding it. And that's where a threshold of revenue (and also different tiers), feels more fair (again, from my perspective).

	▲	thinkingtoilet 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That is my point! We have to live in reality and in reality that does not happen. This dev is trying to get some sort of compensation for their efforts because the reality is the status quo is not working for them. We can "in a perfect world" all we want but we don't live in a perfect world.