I think you have a really good idea! It doesn't just solve the problem with open versus closed source, it also solves a different and much more fundamental problem, which is that people who work on free and open source software do not get rewarded proportional to the value they provide to others. People who work on free software generally do so in their spare time, and work on proprietary software to pay the bills. This should be a sad state of affairs to anyone who actually cares about free software, that the only way to do it is to make proprietary software to keep the lights on. If one of them makes a program that is of great value and utility to others, how might they expect to be rewarded? If they are lucky, they can expect a few donations. If they are very lucky, a reasonably paid position maintaining their program paid for by a company that probably produces proprietary software.

How much are Linux kernel devs paid? How much value does Linux provide to others? On the other side of the coin, how much does the CEO of Snapchat make, and how much value does Snapchat provide to the world at large? This is unacceptable, people who make truly useful things should be rewarded appropriately, it's not fair that people can profit off the work of others while giving none of it back. Pull requests do not put food on the table, when people are able to make a living off of open source software, we'll see a lot more of it than we ever did when they relied on charity, goodwill, and a day job writing proprietary software.

Agreed.

My proposal isn't intended to make open-source sustainable. I don't have any magic solutions.

Rather, my proposal is pragmatic. Can we derive some of the benefits of open-source in a sustainably-funded way?