What this really amounts to is that you/large companies like the work you get for free.
> OSS is one of the few remaining examples of actual public cooperation without a profit motive. Injecting capitalism into it is just going to ruin it.
This is so far off the mark. The profit motive made OSS what it is today. The only issue right now is many OSS devs aren't being paid/appreciated for their efforts.
> Having the funding model ("is it sustainable") be a separate concern from the codebase ("what's the best way I can make this library/framework") is a GOOD thing to keep separate, almost like the editorial vs advertisement/sales divide in journalism.
Agreed, but remember what you're paying for is the service of packaging. The idea is the package maintainer can keep the garbage out. That's what you're paying them for.
OSS is in many ways a market distortion. And that's good for some and horrible for others (e.g. grade school teachers used to get paid much, much less in real terms than they do today). A small fee for commercial, production use of Ubuntu's packaging service, a portion of which funds devs? I'm not certain that's a bad idea.
