a couple of alternatives are donation models (patreon), or quadratic funding, where a common pool is used to provide the incentive to contribute to the creation of a public good at the actual value you get out of it (see Radical Markets for a description). there's definitely others- the main problem is there are powerful actors who benefit greatly from the status quo, and coordination is hard.

Often times those powerful actors are the authors and creators. There is very little that the traditional publishers can do to stop someone if they want to open source a book, or give libraries infinite copies.

I'm a big fan of alternatives, but have come to realize there often valid reasons why they aren't used.

Another way to make it work is the way Free Software tends to be monetized: by selling labor (real scarcity) instead of licenses (imaginary scarcity).

How would that work for large scale, slow and/or risky return projects?

We have several systems for matching resources to production because there isn't any single way that works best. But it is interesting to try to stretch each model as far as it can, for best results we can get.

I'm not sure I see why slow projects are a problem when you're being paid for labor. You just set expectations, and keep the customer updated on the honest status of the project (give them code they can run, even if it doesn't yet do everything they want).

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "risky"? I can only think of projects that don't yet have a customer. In that case, you just don't build it until there is a customer need for it. Architects don't speculatively design buildings hoping to find a customer who wants it. I think we would be better off if the same was true of software.

Ah, by risky I meant software developed without paying customers up front.

I am curious if there is a open source type model for getting a higher return for doing riskier work, as economics would suggest is fair and also helpful.

That is obviously a typical closed source situation, but people find creative solutions.

Not talking about selling services, but somehow compensating for writing the code after the fact, risk adjusted, while keeping the code itself free. Might need a temporarily hybrid license to accomplish this. I.e. the code is obligated to become free, after some fixed license fees have covered the work cost and risk.

> somehow compensating for writing the code after the fact, risk adjusted, while keeping the code itself free.

This is what labor contracts are for, no? I fulfill my side of the contract (by providing software) and then you fulfill your side of the contact (by providing money), else if I fulfill my side and you do not fulfill yours, I have a legal case against you.