I feel like the motivations are at odds with the suggestion. If the problem you want to solve is that consumer software is not open source, charging companies to use it isn't going to change anything.
==
Open Source as a movement has failed IMO for the economic reasons always mentioned, but what we have actually produced is a software commons where individuals and companies cooperate on the production of infrastructure and release it to everyone for free.
On the face of it this is obviously great, but I do wonder if this reduces the amount of software actually being produced since competing with free is very hard. We all know developers are an incredibly difficult market to sell to, and I wonder if open source contributes to this.
OSS companies seem to be abandoning their OSS roots because it turns out competitors copying your work is a real concern once you hit maturity.
To me, this is actually the biggest question to solve for OSS: how can we use Capitalism's ability to accrue resources to useful products to produce the optimal amount of software.
==
OSS has also dramatically improved trust in random code since we're getting source and not binary blobs. Getting software utilities from the 90s was/remains sketchy since you actually have very little confidence in what you are getting. It's not perfect, but software that gets built from CI or from a distro in the open is far more trustworthy.