I do think there is a real problem whereby very important code that a lot of people and systems depend on is looked after part time (or not at all) and nobody thinks about it until it has a severe bug.
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 it’s a problem, but don’t think funding is a good solution. If funding was good, then commercial products would serve the purpose.
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.
> If funding was good, then commercial products would serve the purpose.
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?
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.