So you're idea is to hope that some large company hires an FTE to contribute to your project full time? Sounds like a very poor bet.
Anyway, I would vastly rather they pay me to write the patch properly, the way I want it, the way I would have designed it. Much easier to maintain than than a drive-by patch.
As long as you are paid regular enterprise-software range fees, hiring your own freelancers to help you write patches is also easily achievable.
> While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision.
To pressure developers that believe in "open-source" as in the opposite of "closed-source", to also accept their entire anti-developer property "Free Software" ideology.
If the choice is Open-Core vs Non OSI Approved License(tm) Open-Source, I definitely support the latter.
The OSI needs to be honest and push "OSI Approved Licenses(tm)"... Instead they're like the Simpson's Old Man Yells at Cloud meme, trying to pretend their special interest group has a trademark on "open-source"
The only people who want to push the whole "The OSI's version of Free Software" defines "open-source" rather than "OSI Approved License™" are the Anti-Property GPL folks that never liked the term "open source" anyway, the trolls that want to force other people to work for free, and the people at the OSI
Anyway, I would vastly rather they pay me to write the patch properly, the way I want it, the way I would have designed it. Much easier to maintain than than a drive-by patch.
As long as you are paid regular enterprise-software range fees, hiring your own freelancers to help you write patches is also easily achievable.