They can continue to still charge a licensing fee for a company to advertise support for their version of adaptive sync, which would still be called g-sync. Meaning they can still say Asus, give us £20 per monitor and we'll allow your screen to work with g-sync in our driver otherwise it won't work with adaptive sync, same way as they do with sli/3d vision licensing. There is still money to be made there, AMD have specifically stated(as have third parties) that there is no cost in this licensing from AMD, they just want the screens to be tested and check they work with freesync. It's cost the companies no money to advertise freesync support on their screens.
But at some point the monitor makers will say they are unwilling to make two separate versions of every screen, which requires more hardware, more testing, more R&D, parts of the production line to be changed and more on going support difficulties.
We will still very possibly see two versions of every screen, one g-sync and one freesync because Nvidia may be able to say Asus, you can brand this screen g-sync but only as long as you don't advertise freesync on it.
AFAIK freesync will still work because licensing is a formality, AMD aren't blacklisting screens as Nvidia do. So Nvidia still may want it's 'own' versions of screens. Likewise hopefully they could offer 10-20 cheaper freesync(but no g-sync) versions of the screens, thus it would be blacklisted and not work with Nvidia drivers for g-sync mode, but work with AMD fine. The difference there is in trivial code differences, the hardware would be the same, the biggest differences would be in branding on the box and Nvidia's drivers allowing the model number. They'd likely have pretty much only a different model name within the bios but no other physical differences. Meaning if they have a team working on improvements for performance it would apply to both screens, if there was a problem and they needed to fix it, it could be applied to both screens.
