I'm not sure I agree. Maybe for some software, but I wouldn't even think about using a programming language without at least one quality open-source implementation, and I think many developers would agree.
Fair 'nuff. But let me ask you this: will those managers ask them to use a language without a high-quality open-source implementation? And if you look at the most popular languages out there (and even many of the fringe ones) the answer is probably not.
All the stored procedure programming languages of commercial SQL servers, .NET before Microsoft opened it up, commercial compilers of Common Lisp, C++ Builder, Delphi, Ada, C and C++ compilers for embedded development (no clang and gcc aren't the only ones), Coldfusion, Flash, Objective-C (gcc and clang are just a tiny part of the whole stack), Cobol, RPG, NEWP, a few in-house proprietary languages, Java compilers for embedded platforms with extended AOT features
It doesn't matter if there are open source implementations of language X, if you cannot use them in processor X, operating system Y, rather the closed source commercial compiler of the processor X, operating system Y vendor.
The only thing left will be the Linux kernel and a few major projects like Emacs.
The circle will be complete and we will be back to the 90's with freeware like licenses.