feat: Adopt AICP to monetize AI consumption without hurting the community

[matgren]

Relates to
PR #2388 (closed)

Context
I read Adam's transparent comment on why the llms.txt PR was closed:

"Just don't have time to work on things that don't help us pay the bills right now... making it easier for people to use AI tools to avoid visiting the documentation hurts our business."

This is a completely valid stance. If AI agents consume your IP without returning value, they are effectively "freeloading" on the documentation that drives your upsell funnel (Tailwind UI). However, the community backlash highlights that developers expect first-class AI support today.

The Proposal: "Freshness Gating" via AICP
I propose adopting the AI Consumption Protocol (AICP) to solve this specific paradox.

AICP allows you to define a standard contract for AI agents:

Stable N-1 (Public): The documentation for the previous stable version is free and public for everyone (startups, students, hobbyists).
Stable N (Latest): The documentation for the current version is gated.
AI Agents can only access it if the user provides a valid GitHub Sponsor Token.
Why this helps "pay the bills"
Instead of fighting AI consumption, this model turns it into a subscription driver.

Corporate/Power Users: Will happily pay a monthly sponsorship to get the lastest in Cursor/VS Code.
Community: Still has full access to N-1 documentation for free.
No "Lost Traffic": The users paying for the "AI Fast Lane" are the high-value segment you want to monetize anyway.

Implementation
You would simply add a /.well-known/aicp.json file to the repo:

{
"aicp_version": "0.1",
"project": "tailwindcss",
"default_policy": "stable-n-1",
"public_snapshot": {
"version": "3.4.17",
"docs": "https://v3.tailwindcss.com/docs"
},
"latest_snapshot": {
"version": "4.0.0-beta",
"access": "entitled",
"entitlement": {
"type": "github-sponsors",
"url": "https://github.com/sponsors/tailwindlabs"
}
}
}
This signals to the AI tools: "If you want to suggest version N of the code, your user must be a sponsor."

(Disclaimer: I am one of the authors of the AICP Draft Specification, built specifically to address this issue affecting open source sustainability.)

[todo0123]

I'm sorry, but not AI or some "AI agents" are the consumers of the documentation. Tailwind users are.

The reality is that in 1-2 years developers en masse will use only tools AI can easily work with. AI is a developer's tool they pay for, like an IDE. Just imagine who would use a tool that blocks its API for IDE autocompletion.

So the main point is that AI-friendly documentation is needed for Tailwind users first of all, and making the product AI-compatible is a competitive benefit.

However, you can't resist it anyway. LLM crawlers will parse documentation websites either in HTML format or in plain text. Having a txt version will only slightly reduce hosting costs for the product owner and potentially slightly increase the quality of code generated by LLMs.

Fighting so-called AI is tilting at windmills. It's the same as obstructing search engine indexing. In the end, AI is a search engine with power-ups.

My sympathies are on the Tailwind side, but I believe the answer lies in another plane. Users don't buy the Plus plan not because they don't see an advertisement, but because they just don't need it in 2026, since AI can build templates tailored to a request without any starting samples that Plus includes. The UI component library there can be easily replaced by free DaisyUI.

Unfortunately, selling a "Button" component that is expected to be essential is as hard as selling a fast horse in the car century. And AI is essential tool for every developer (especially web developer!).

Tailwind developers have done really fantastic work, but I was always surprised at how they managed to sell the Plus plan. I don't think anybody else could do the same as efficiently. An equal and honest comparison in Google search reduces the chances of a paid product being sold to almost zero.

I don't have an alternative solution, but personally, I can only speak on behalf of myself, I wouldn't attach any tracking ID (GitHub sponsor ID or anything) to AI requests to access the documentation of product that I use.

I wish Tailwind developers to find another, non-destructive way of monetization in 2026. This year looks challenging for every open-source or indie developer, and not only them.