Gated-Source: Rethinking How Open Source Developers Get Paid

Open source changed the world. It powers everything from the phone in your pocket to the servers running the internet. But here’s the uncomfortable truth most people don’t talk about, the developers building these essential tools often can’t afford to keep maintaining them. I’ve seen this problem up close. When I used Verdaccio, an open-source private package registry, I hit a configuration issue with Docker tunneling. As someone new to both Docker and the tool, I was stuck. When I finally reached out for help, it took two days to get a response, "We do not get paid, so please be patient next time." Verdaccio Docker I figured it out eventually, but that message stuck with me. Here was a powerful, widely-used tool, and its maintainers couldn't afford to provide timely support. This isn’t just Verdaccio's problem. Industry analyses confirm that "relying on volunteers to maintain every open source project isn’t long term sustainable". Yet this is exactly the model most projects run on. relying on volunteers to maintain every open source project isn’t long term sustainable The truth is, most open source developers can’t pay rent with GitHub stars. Donations exist through platforms like GitHub Sponsors or Open Collective, but they usually only support the most popular projects. In practice, projects often lack funding even though companies build billion-dollar products on them. I watched this mismatch, incredible value created, but developers struggling to survive, and knew something had to change. GitHub Sponsors Open Collective only support the most popular projects companies build billion-dollar products The False Choice That's Breaking Open Source As I dug deeper into this problem, I realized developers face what I call the False Choice, either keep your code proprietary to make money, or open source it and hope someone eventually pays you out of goodwill. False Choice The current reality is brutal Volunteer maintenance is fragile: Most developers work on open source in their free time, making steady progress nearly impossible. Life happens, jobs change, and projects stall. Volunteer maintenance is fragile: Donation-based support barely works: GitHub Sponsors and similar platforms rely on goodwill and typically only benefit very popular projects. The vast majority of maintainers make nothing. Donation-based support barely works: Open-core has terrible conversion rates: Some projects try selling extra features or offering dual licenses, but conversion rates are extremely low, often well below 1% of users actually pay. Open-core has terrible conversion rates: The all-or-nothing dilemma: You either close everything to earn money, or stay completely open and hope for the best. The all-or-nothing dilemma: completely open and hope for the best. I experienced this firsthand with that Verdaccio maintainer's response. They were doing incredible work that thousands of developers depended on, but couldn't afford to provide basic support. That's when I started asking, what if there was a third option? Enter Gated-Source Gated-Source is the middle ground I've been working on, a formalized approach that lets developers share their code while controlling access to it. Instead of choosing between "completely open" or "completely closed," you decide what to share freely and what requires payment or meeting certain criteria. The concept itself isn't entirely new. Developers have been gating access in various forms for years. The npm registry charges for private packages. API services limit request rates unless you pay for higher tiers. Any system that restricts access until certain conditions are met, payment, authentication, membership, and others, is technically using a gate. payment authentication membership technically using a gate What I'm doing is formalizing this for code itself and making it a first-class monetization model, not just a workaround. formalizing this for code itself first-class monetization model workaround In the Gated-Source model, a project's metadata (name, README, screenshots) remains publicly visible and searchable, but the actual source code or downloads are "behind a gate" controlled by the owner. Anyone can discover your project, but accessing the code requires a purchase or license agreement. The gate might be free (just agreeing to terms) or paid (via one-time purchase or subscription), as you choose. Gated-Source model name README screenshots behind a gate controlled by the owner time purchase subscription Importantly, adding a paywall doesn't automatically change your project's open-source license, you still explicitly set and communicate any license terms you want. How Gated-Source Actually Works I've implemented two main approaches in Uhpenry, the platform I built to make this real, can both can be used at the same time. Standard Gating The simplest form. You provide access to a project only after someone pays or meets your criteria. Users can either download a snapshot of the code (a frozen version at a specific commit) or be invited as a collaborator in your repository. Think of it like buying a course or template, you pay once, you get access. And for upgrade it is up to the owner to give it out for free, and pay a fee to upgrade whenever there’s a new version, or the access method has been changed. eg. From download acccess to Collaborator Access. invited as a collaborator in your repository Path-Based Gating This is where it gets interesting, and it's what I recently rolled out. Instead of gating the entire project, you choose specific files or features to keep open or accessible while restricting others. Imagine you've built a full-stack SaaS starter template with authentication, billing, and a dashboard. You could structure it like this: /authentication - login-ui.tsx (open) - signup-form.tsx (open) - password-reset.tsx (gated) - session-management.ts (gated) /billing - stripe-integration.ts (gated) - subscription-logic.ts (gated) /dashboard - basic-layout.tsx (open) - admin-panel.tsx (gated) /config - database.js (open) - api-keys.js (gated) /authentication - login-ui.tsx (open) - signup-form.tsx (open) - password-reset.tsx (gated) - session-management.ts (gated) /billing - stripe-integration.ts (gated) - subscription-logic.ts (gated) /dashboard - basic-layout.tsx (open) - admin-panel.tsx (gated) /config - database.js (open) - api-keys.js (gated) Developers browsing your project can see your authentication flow, learn from your approach, and understand your code quality. But the advanced features, password reset flows, session management, Stripe integration, admin tools, those are gated. If they want the complete, production-ready system, they pay. password reset flows session management Stripe integration admin tools production-ready they pay This isn't about tricking people into paying. It's about being transparent, providing value upfront, and letting developers decide if the full package is worth it to them. isn't Why This Model Actually Works According to the documentation I've written for Uhpenry, Gated-Source adds a "visibility + controlled access" layer on top of normal repository workflows. From my experience building this, it brings several critical benefits: visibility controlled access Monetization with provenance: You can earn revenue while preserving transparent version history. Each release is recorded and verifiable. Monetization with provenance: Flexible sharing: You can provide previews using path-based gating (like free access to basic modules or an older release) without making the entire codebase public. Flexible sharing: Risk-managed distribution: Your source isn't broadly redistributed by strangers. Access is only granted to paying customers, and collaborators you choose. Risk-managed distribution: Auditability: Every purchase or access event is cryptographically recorded through what I call Snap-System (Snapgate, Snapcharge, and Snapshot), are the trust and verification system of the platform for both the developer and the buyer. This means both you and your users have undeniable proof of what code was delivered and when. Auditability: Snap-System Snapgate Snapcharge Snapshot By keeping open licenses intact, Gated-Source lets you continue sharing your work under familiar terms while still charging for distribution. You monetize without sacrificing transparency or trust. Building Uhpenry After wrestling with this problem for months, I spent the last year building Uhpenry, what I think of as "the Shopify for developers". It's a unified marketplace and storefront infrastructure specifically designed for developers tools. the Shopify for developers the Shopify for developers marketplace Here's how it works, You create a "Booth" (your vendor account) and publish projects like products. The platform handle the payments, licensing, access control, and moderation, so you can focus on building. Booth products The platform runs on three key technologies I as mentioned earlier, Snapgate, Snapcharge, and Snapshot. Snapgate enforces access rules based on your settings. Snapcharge records each transaction and entitles a user to a specific repository state (a particular commit or tag). Snapshot provides an immutable ledger of all grants and changes, which everything is anchor to the blockchain using Arweave. Here is an example. Snapgate Snapcharge Snapshot Arweave Here is an example In effect, every purchase is tied to a cryptographic record, and code delivery is reproducible later. This creates a trust layer I haven't seen elsewhere, both parties can verify exactly what was bought and delivered. I've also built in features you'd expect from any modern marketplace: analytics dashboards, reviews, dispute resolution, and team collaboration with fine-grained permissions. For example, you can team up with others in shared Booths and set atomic permissions on projects. My platform fees are 8% (or 6% for early adopters), competitive with typical marketplaces. atomic permissions Why I Made It Domain-Agnostic One crucial decision I made early, with Uhpenry supports any code-based product, not just web or mobile apps, but games, IoT devices, robotics, desktop applications, VR/AR, Biotechnology, Quantum Computing projects. Uhpenry any code-based product This means one developer could sell a Unity game plugin, another an embedded-device library, and another a finance spreadsheet macro, all in the same marketplace. By requiring detailed project metadata (descriptions, categories, tags), I'm making it possible to discover these niche tools that might otherwise never get found. Unity game plugin embedded-device library finance spreadsheet macro This isn't just about selling templates. It's about giving developers across every domain a monetization layer for whatever they build, whether it's an MCP server, a desktop app, an IoT firmware, or a robotics control system. MCP server a desktop app IoT firmware robotics control system Code as Product in an AI Era As AI continues to automate software development, I believe the value of specialized developer tools will only grow. Models that generate or orchestrate code need reliable ways to find and use new packages. Right now, most AI systems still generate code from scratch because they’re limited by their training data and context window. They only know what they’ve seen. But as new frameworks, integrations, and developer tools continue to emerge, it won’t make sense for them to keep reinventing the wheel. At some point, generating everything fresh will be inefficient and risky, a poor use of compute and time. The smarter approach will be to buy, fetch, or integrate existing components built by developers. A production-ready billing system, a tested analytics SDK, or a robust authentication template will be just a query away. buy, fetch, or integrate existing components If every developer-maintained tool is correctly indexed with metadata (as Uhpenry encourages), future AI agents could query a marketplace like ours to discover the perfect library for a task. In that scenario, a project's visibility and licensing settings on Uhpenry could determine whether AI systems automatically include it in solutions. This isn't speculation, it's where things are headed. AI-powered coding assistants already need ways to discover and integrate tools, not just generate them. Properly structured metadata and categorization make that transition possible, turning AI generation into AI integration. AI generation AI integration. A New Path Forward Looking back at that maintainer who told me "We do not get paid," I think about how many brilliant developers are in the same position. Building essential tools that power the internet, barely scraping by on donations and goodwill. Gated-Source, and platforms like Uhpenry, reframe this entire problem. You don't have to choose between "open or money" anymore. You can choose both, keep your project visible and community-friendly while gating and charging for access on your own terms. Gated-Source Uhpenry This model preserves open-source ideals (transparent code and history) while providing a path to financial sustainability. It also future-proofs your work by making projects discoverable and interoperable in an AI-driven world. I turned down a job offer to build this because I believe developers deserve better than the False Choice. After a year of building and just launching last week, I'm seeing that this problem resonates with people. The solution isn't perfect yet, but it's a start. Code is a product. The people who create it deserve to be compensated fairly without locking it away entirely. That's what I'm building toward. Code product Why Not Just Use Gumroad or ThemeForest? This is a question I get a lot, and it's valid. Platforms like Gumroad or ThemeForest, already exist for selling digital products. So why build something new? Gumroad ThemeForest Because code isn’t just another digital product, it requires fundamentally different infrastructure. Because code isn’t just another digital product, it requires fundamentally different infrastructure. Git-Native, Not Generic Downloads Git-Native, Not Generic Downloads Gumroad and similar platforms treat everything as static files. You upload a ZIP, someone downloads it, transaction complete. But code isn’t static, it evolves. It has versions, commits, branches, and dependencies. Gumroad static evolves versions commits branches dependencies Uhpenry is built on Git. When someone purchases access to your project, they’re not just getting a frozen ZIP file. They're getting access to a specific repository state (a commit or tag) with full version history. If you update your code, you can grant access to new versions. This is native version control built into the transaction layer, something no generic marketplace provides. Uhpenry Git commit tag history Code-Specific Trust Infrastructure Code-Specific Trust Infrastructure When you buy a template on ThemeForest, you're trusting the seller uploaded what they said they did. There’s no verifiable proof of what was delivered. But with the Snap-system both the user and the developer know what exactly was purchased. Path-Based Gating: Show Before You Sell Path-Based Gating: Show Before You Sell On traditional platforms, it’s all-or-nothing. You either see nothing, or you buy and see everything. With Uhpenry’s path-based gating, developers choose which files or features to showcase openly while keeping advanced functionality gated. This is impossible on Gumroad or ThemeForest because they’re not designed for code structure, they only understand "file" or "no file." Gumroad ThemeForest file no file Path-based gating means potential buyers can inspect your code quality, understand your architecture, and make informed decisions before purchasing. It's transparency that builds trust while still protecting your most valuable work. Path-based gating Licensing and Access Control Licensing and Access Control If you’re selling a desktop application code or CLI tool code that the end-user has host on their own, you need more than a download link. You need an access key generation, usage tracking, the ability to revoke access, and verification systems, and that’s built into Uhpenry. Discovery Built for Developers, Not Shoppers Discovery Built for Developers, Not Shoppers ThemeForest has categories like "WordPress Themes" or "HTML Templates." That's fine for designers shopping for a theme. ThemeForest "WordPress Themes HTML Templates. But us developers don’t search that way. We search by tech stack (React, Python, Rust), by domain (IoT, robotics, games), by specific use case (real-time sync, authentication, payment processing). Uhpenry's metadata system is designed specifically for technical discovery, both for humans and AI systems. React Python Rust IoT robotics games real-time sync authentication payment processing Cross-Domain, Not Web-Only Cross-Domain, Not Web-Only Most code marketplaces focus almost exclusively on web templates and themes. That makes sense for their audience, but it leaves out huge segments of developers. I explicitly built Uhpenry to support any code-based product across any domain: games, IoT firmware, robotics control systems, desktop applications, browser extensions, biotech simulations, quantum computing libraries. If it's code, it belongs on Uhpenry. any code-based product across any domain OSS Discovery + Claiming OSS Discovery + Claiming Here's something no other platform does, I’v aggregate existing open-source projects for discovery, letting creators claim their projects and optionally add paid gated-source versions or premium support. Gumroad doesn't know your GitHub repo exists. Uhpenry can surface it, let users discover it, and give you an option to monetize, without you having to manually upload anything first. AI-Ready Infrastructure AI-Ready Infrastructure Generic marketplaces aren't thinking about AI agents as customers. I am. The metadata structure, the MCP integration I'm building, the micropayment infrastructure for agent-to-agent transactions—none of this exists on Gumroad or ThemeForest because they're built for human shoppers browsing products. Uhpenry is built for a future where AI systems discover, evaluate, and purchase code autonomously. That requires fundamentally different architecture. Conclusion Conclusion The way I see it, software isn't just entering a new era, it’s being rewritten at the foundation. Developers will always be the ones who push technology forward. But as AI becomes a co-creator, the dynamics of how code is built, shared, and valued are changing forever. In that world, Uhpenry isn’t just a platform, it’s part of the connective tissue between human creativity and machine collaboration. Uhpenry platform connective tissue human creativity machine collaboration Gated-Source is about giving developers agency in that shift. It ensures that when AI systems start integrating, remixing, and redistributing code at scale, the people who built those systems still have ownership, attribution, and reward built in by design. Gated-Source This isn’t just about monetization, it's about sustainability, trust, and the evolution of software as a living economy. Open source showed what's possible when knowledge is shared. Gated-Source shows what's possible when creation is valued. The next era of software belongs to both: open where it empowers, gated where it sustains. And if we get this right, AI won’t replace developers, it'll work for them. I'm still building this vision, and I'd love your feedback. Check out what I've built at uhpenry.com, explore the platform, and let me know what you think. If you have questions, ideas, or just want to talk about the future of developer monetization, my DMs are open on X [@rockyessel] - I read and respond to everything. I'm still building this vision, and I'd love your feedback. uhpenry.com uhpenry.com DMs open @rockyessel rockyessel This is just the beginning.