I think you'd lose a lot of people with the open source argument. Open source software is many wonderful things but it's not innovative. Been using and writing

I think you'd lose a lot of people with the open source argument. Open source software is many wonderful things but it's not innovative. Been using and writing it for over 20 years: the projects that fundamentally change the conversation are nearly always proprietary (or sometimes open sourced for strategic reasons but developed as proprietary). Open source hits are usually clones. Linux -> clone of UNIX, on desktop sometimes macOS Git -> clone of BitKeeper Android -> developed in a proprietary way with minimal community, heavily iOS inspired GIMP -> clone of Photoshop OpenOffice -> clone of MS Office qemu -> clone of VMWare etc. It makes sense. Open source projects exist to 'scratch an itch' and are rarely optimised to maximise the size of the userbase. There's little incentive for open source developers to innovate: more users can be as much of a downside as an upside. Mostly it just equals more support headaches. Proprietary products are all about getting lots more users, so there's an incentive to try new things.