Thank you, dalke, for pointing out this big flaw in my understanding. I read through that link and many relevant web pages. What my essay proposes is mandatory licensing and not really open source. My vision for this license is to let people freely redistribute both the source and the binary and use it for either commercial or non-commercial purposes. However, if it was used for a commercial purpose, then a part of the revenue should be donated to a non-profit org.
Thanks for pointing it out. I intended used the term LGPL to refer to the concept of allowing open source software to be used for commercial purposes. But in reality, this idea would need a license of it's own. Do you think such a license would be feasible?
Dell has gone on and off with their Linux support during previous releases. But, I am not particularly concerned because in the Linux community, if there are drivers for your hardware today, they will likely exist forever. As for Unity, I can't agree anymore with your observation that it requires many mouse clicks to get something done. Compared to OSX and even to Windows, Unity has wasted tons of screen estate and made it much harder to get things done. GNOME2 is definitely legendary especially because of it's simplicity and versatility.