RMS Open-source Socialism?

Isn't GNU and all forms of the open source movement just another attempt at socialism.  If the source must be released, then anyone can steal your work.  Software as a service lowers us programmers to mere support monkeys and is orders of magnitude less profitable than selling the software itself.   We already know that capitalism trumps socialism every-time.  With no incentive to work, most people don't work more than the minimum.

The proof is in the pudding. The vast majority of open-source projects are clones of commercial projects.  Open-source projects rarely do anything innovative.  Open-source projects mostly have worse design and are more buggy than their commercial counterparts. 

There are a handful of good open-source projects, lead by charitable souls.  But for the most part, it's a lot of crappy clones.  The areas where open-source projects make the most progress are programming languages and tools, ironically though, by sucking all the profit out of making programming languages and tools, open-source has killed much of the innovation in the area.  Instead most work on programming tools is subsidized by big technology corps like Google, Microsoft and Apple that try to lock you into their platforms.  Gone are the pure software tool makers like Borland.

It's time to admit that open-source and free software is detrimental to the ecosystem as whole in the long-run.  The benefits of open-source are perfectly achievable without sacrificing profit and the incentive to create great software.

For example:
1. Provide free-licenses for non-commercial use.
2. Provide plugin functionality for software extensions
3. Sell re-usable open-source, but not free libraries, so that others can benefit from your work

It's time to face facts, free open-source software is a socialist utopian dream.  We live in a capitalistic society and that dream hurts us more than helps us.  By open-sourcing and destroying the market for software, you prevent the creation of innovative software.  It's time to fight back.

I propose the creation of a new set of ethical software standards.  These standards should be pragmatic, not based on a Utopian vision of a post-scarcity world.

Here's roughly what i'm thinking(critique welcome).  This applies mostly to software that would otherwise ideally be open-source.  Not for games, and things of that nature for which a open-source has little benefit.

1.  Software should be free for non-commercial use.  For commercial use it should cost money.  Stop giving software away for free, businesses that benefit from your software always be paying for it or contributing back to the project in some way.

2.  Developers that contribute to open-source software, should be financially rewarded for their contribution.

3.  Consider allowing commercial entities to fork an open source project, and charge them for the privilege.

4.  Punish unethical companies, do not allow them to use your software

Give up this utopian dream of free software for all.  Use the leverage available by commercializing software to help the greater good.  Use the money to continue developing ethical software.  Make the world a better place.

I like it, we just need to design it to have no loop holes.

One issue with payment to the developers:

If all developers receive a flat fee from the client corporations, the project could become incredibly expensive as the number of contributors grows large. This would discourage use of projects with a long history of open source development, and would favor young projects made by a small set of developers.

If the cost of using the product is held constant, and if the contributions to the authors are divided evenly, a corporation could have a bunch of people extend the project by adding something small and trivial, and then have those people dilute your payment. Then this group of phony contributors could pass the money back to the corporation under the table.

I think it could work, and it would provide a way for people to make a living in a very adhoc environment, which is interesting. But when I work on open source work, I work on it for the enjoyment value alone, and as a consequence, there typically isn't a hole in the market for it to fill, and it's easier for me to not worry about whether or not it will turn to profit. Of course, it would be nice to be financially compensated for working on something that I actually want to work on, but it's not the end of the world if I just have to both.