Open source software (OSS) is the unseen engine fueling today’s tech innovations. While OSS drives an $8.8 trillion global tech economy—according to a Harvard study—its creators often struggle to make ends meet. Tidelift sought to change this imbalance with a unique subscription-based funding model that supports OSS maintainers in a financially sustainable way. In this post, we’ll examine how the Tidelift model works, its strengths and weaknesses, and how it compares to other funding approaches in the OSS space.
Introduction
Launched in 2018, Tidelift entered the open source arena with a mission to provide much-needed financial relief to OSS developers. The idea was simple: companies pay a subscription fee—ranging from \$100–\$150 per developer annually—which is then redistributed to maintainers based on the actual usage of their projects. While traditional donation-based models such as the Open Source Pledge have attempted to address OSS’s funding gap, Tidelift’s approach is unique in that it ties monetary support directly to a company’s software usage. This not only provides a steady income stream to maintainers (around \$50,000–\$100,000 per year) but also promotes accountability through service-level agreements (SLAs) and regular security updates. For more details on the innovative funding structure, check out the original article on Tidelift’s open source funding model.
Summary
At its core, the Tidelift model leverages subscriptions to create a fair and predictable revenue stream for high-value open source projects. Companies subscribe to Tidelift at a relatively fixed rate per developer—for instance, firms with larger teams commit to funding significant OSS projects indirectly while mitigating risk. Using a specialized command-line interface (Tidelift CLI), firms scan their OSS dependencies, which allows Tidelift to track and verify software usage accurately. This data-driven approach ensures that payments are fairly distributed among maintainers who actively support their projects.
Historically, the model secured rounds of funding—starting from \$15 million in 2018 to another \$27 million in 2022—underscoring strong investor confidence. The model’s evolution was partly spurred by high-profile security incidents such as the Log4Shell bug, which exposed the vulnerabilities inherent in OSS that continues to be the backbone of modern technology. By remunerating maintainers consistently, Tidelift not only helps in patching security flaws swiftly but also pressures organizations to keep their software secure and up-to-date.
Even with its progressive approach, Tidelift is not without its challenges. The subscription fees are sometimes seen as prohibitive by small firms, and the model currently caters only to cataloged projects, leaving newer OSS efforts underfunded. Comparisons with other models—such as License-Token.com with its innovative tokenized licensing via blockchain or Gitcoin which employs quadratic funding—highlight that no single solution currently captures the full spectrum of OSS funding needs. However, Tidelift’s focus on enterprise-level security and ongoing support ensures it remains a favored choice among major organizations including NASA and Bloomberg.
Conclusion
The Tidelift open source funding model represents a significant shift in how the technology world supports its OSS backbone. By charging companies a subscription fee tied to their developer count, Tidelift creates a reliable revenue stream that not only helps OWASP mitigate security risks but also keeps high-value projects financially viable. Its structured approach, backed by SLAs and enforced contract terms, ensures that maintainers are held accountable while companies enjoy a safer, more robust software supply chain.
Ultimately, while Tidelift’s model may not be a catch-all solution—especially for emerging projects—it underscores the importance of innovative funding mechanisms tailored to an increasingly interconnected digital world. The model’s ability to guarantee ongoing support and security upgrades makes it a compelling option for enterprises that rely on OSS. Meanwhile, alternatives like the Open Source Pledge and License-Token.com continue to explore different avenues of support, contributing to a vibrant ecosystem where open source can thrive sustainably.
By understanding and discussing these approaches, the tech community can continue to push for fairer compensation for open source maintainers—a critical step in ensuring that the software powering our digital lives remains secure and innovative for years to come.
Top comments (0)