This is the problem with your argument. You're looking at it from the developer's perspective, rather than the user's. As the developer you have this choice, and you know which choice you've made. As a user, all I have is your word (which is worth nothing if I don't already have a good reason to trust you).
As a user, source code access is important, for a number of reasons:
1. It gives both users and third parties a way to verify your claims
2. As it turns out, transparency tends to discourage bad behaviour in the first place
3. Users can fork if you no longer maintain the project according to their standards (abandonment, price hikes, bundling malware, and so on)
None of those reasons are direct improvements for you as a developer, but they're a big part of why I am reluctant to adopt proprietary software (free or paid).
> How are movies a counterpoint? Movies and streaming services are paid products.
Yes? I am less reluctant to pay for a movie because they don't demand the same privileges.
> In fact if you are able to make a living through selling software you have less incentive to collect user data and sell it as a revenue stream. Most products that are free are those where the your data is being sold for is exactly that reason.
On the other hand, reality shows that many (most) commercial developers are perfectly happy to pick both.
