Many advocates of Open Source fervently hope for companies offering Linux-related services to finally turn profits and prove that there is a business model behind Open Source, but such a prospect doesn't seem likely in the near term. In any case, that's a roundabout way to establish Open Source's capitalist credentials. The fundamental principles of capitalism are laid out very clearly by that hardcore ideologue, Ayn Rand. Wealth belongs to the individual who produced it. Ayn Rand never wrote about software in her lifetime, but she surely would have recognized it as wealth.
Nothing epitomizes individual human creativity as well as software, being the product of pure mind.
It is probably also safe to assume from her writings that Rand would have considered software to rightfully belong to the programmers who wrote it. Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. What is commonly referred to as such is the private property of a government. Not only that, since the software is owned by none other than its creators, Ayn Rand would have had no argument at all with the property ownership aspect of Open Source. It is not any of your concern, and it certainly is not the concern of the government.