Thanks for the interaction. I'm learning a lot.
Let me try to resume this, so I can avoid my tendency to digress. Sorry for the repetition of somethings, but I think it's needed.
Your premisses, as I see them:
(1) Free software development is more efficient than proprietary software. (2) Software should be free because it can enforce controls on people. (3) To become the only kind of software development, free software development needs to find a way to get money to developers. (4) The market isn't working right now because the companies are gaining money from free software are not using that money to reward developers. (5) The way to correct the market is to create an organization that sells free software and rewards developers. This company would have a worldwide scope.
The premisses I think are not correct are (3) and (4). In (3) I'm not sure if I want a single type of software development, I believe diversity is beautiful (I believe this is another discussion). My real problem is with (4). What I've seen of the market is that more and more companies hire free software developers either letting them work on or with the purpose of working on free software projects.
As I see it, then there's the market. FSMC (Free Software Marketing Company) will have to be extremely effective at marketing if it wants to be a world-wide software supplier that, according to you, will compete with a lot of companies that don't have that cost. Simply put, what will be this company market advantage ? After all all the system depends on the success of FSMC.
To me it seems that, as described, FSMC depends on getting a distribution monopoly on some free software projects. This limitation on distribution reduces the effectiveness of development by separating users from developers, putting marketers in the middle of that interaction. This introduction causes delays in the feedback loop that we agree to be an important feature of free software development. This means effectively reducing free software development efficiency.
The reason why I don't think the market is as gloomy as it seems is that the number of companies that have been working with free software is increasing, and most of them are not playing by corporate rules, but by the community rules. Those who don't have less support by the community and end up paying more for their product development, so they have to ask more money from their customers.
An example of this, as far as I can tell, has been Caldera. They had one of the first "graphical" linux distributions, but they've fall beyond most of others in market share. My point is that this happened because most of its value-added software was not free and not even distributable.