I don't know how to respond to this, point-by-point now.
I'm not sure "where I'm going". I like there to be balance between selfishness and sharing. I don't believe in "winner-takes-it-all" capitalism or "everyone is equal" socialism. I think either leads to a broken society.
"I don’t believe customers are being controlled."
Google want people to use their OS so they cross-subsidise hardware sales to make their product cheapest and make it very hard to install a different OS. Microsoft Lean on PC manufacturers like HP and Dell to keep their other options well-hidden. I consider both of those abuse of market power.
I meant "free access to the source code". I'd rather pay for software I have the right to keep using and to be able to change than have freeware. Software escrow existed before Free software. Lack of access to printer drivers was the last straw that triggered Richard Stallman to start GNU.
"This is the bargain that was struck." It wasn't originally. The GNU licence said that software which used Free software must also be Free. It was intended that people would choose either model and RMS believed it would be hard to compete on price with free. That should have led to a funding mechanism for FOSS.
I don't think Microsoft could compete with FOSS office suites when asking for a lump sum, but could at a few quid a week against Google. Adobe never seemed to manage to secure their software against poor artists. I use 'service' for anything that gets turned off if you don't pay, or the provider goes bust.
I'm trying to find a way to fund FOSS development 'fairly'. To me that means that if someone makes money by using software, they give some to the people who make it. Having an itch scratched is payment. I'd only expect payment if you solve other people's problems.
Working for someone is OK but quality "software manufacturers" of packages disappear unless paid for, then competition, secrecy and duplication of effort causes inefficiency.
Yes, we can sell our skilled labour. That's RMS' model. I think we should also be able to benefit from having ideas even if we don't have the skills to implement them, but I want ideas to be shared too. My compromise proposal is 'secret for a bit', to give commercial advantage to customers that fund those who have ideas and develop software and to receive payment while passing the hand-me-downs to the worse off and the mean before they are completely worn out. Maybe we could try something similar with companies that pay tax.
The idea I've had was going into one of my books but it could be worth a lot of money to energy companies and give them a commercial advantage but I want all energy production to be more efficient, so I want them all to have it. Perhaps I could get funding, patent a design and sell it to one of them. My compromise is to offer all of them a chance to jointly fund my research or be left a couple of years behind their competitors that do, spreading the cost across those who will gain most. The effect should be to make energy production cheaper and benefit us all. I doubt if the investment would cost more than the Christmas party did, 10 years ago. They're a bit tight now though.