Cute sentiment but I do not think you understand the type of resources required to build this type of software where individuals can generate and hold the private keys of their own wealth. Funding the building out of the core infrastructure the entire community uses has not been cheap and many people have made significant sacrifices of both time and money to get Bitcoin where it is today.
Of course businesses only survive by attracting paying customers, so the need of Armory to do so is clear.
I'm not sure you appreciate the way that Armory's value to potential customers changes as a result of being closed source.
I guess Alan sent out a bunch of form letter PMs in September about this change. I got one wherein he mentioned a possible "power user licence", which to me is a complete non-starter.
Even though I have no problem paying for software, I'd never buy a license for a closed-source version of Armory. Once somebody who wants to steal Bitcoins decides they can get the best bang for their buck by going after cold storage users, they are going to make a beeline to Armory to obtain that list of licensed users and/or attempt to compromise your internal source repository and insert a backdoor.
Personally, I will never use a cold storage wallet that I don't compile myself from publicly-available source. A closed-source Bitcoin wallet is a spearphisher's wet dream.
Ah, if we only had some kind of technology to pay anonymously, via the internet..
(true, the software surely won't be open source, and/or wants to regularly call home. Both huge risks for such a preselected usergroup)