But that's almost orthogonal to the issue of whether the original developer should be paid because their code turns out to be useful to lots of people.
I think a better approach is to encourage more smart developers contributing time. And if companies find an individual or a percent of a person’s time on a project that’s actually funding. But it’s very different from trying to replicate direct funds.
Not sure that's a solid affirmation, especially given how there are many open source projects receiving funding that often outcompete their commercial counterparts. In particular I would point out the major open source backing foundations such as the CNCF and Linux Foundation who help to fund their own projects. Would you say that these two organizations and their projects are not serving their purpose or are being outcompeted by commercial offerings?
Plenty of commercial code is barely looked after, and if it's closed and broken, it's a lot harder to fix.
0. Those who release their code under an open source license, in the hope that it will be useful to others in some way.
1. Those who do the same as above, with the additional hope that they will be paid for in some ill-defined way. And when they are not, take to twitter and blogs to proclaim, "somebody should really do something about this!"