> I think this is a mischaracterization, since these things apply to free software as well. The difference is that it is usually much easier to detect when such things are happening, and modify the program so that it no longer does these things.
> Again, this doesn’t seem to me to be a “free software” argument. The reason this doesn’t usually happen with free software is that there is no central entity that controls the software, whereas with non-free software one company/server/person can control their products and “backdoor” them.
But that is the whole point! Software freedom is about power. The point isn't that it is impossible to licence malware under GPL, the point is that GPL gives the user the freedom to remove the malware parts. Your argument seems a bit like saying that claiming that free markets help with price discovery is a mischaracterization because people can offer overpriced products in a free market ... when the whole point of a free market is that the buyer has the option to not buy the overpriced product, and it's just completely irrelevant whether overpriced offers exist.
> So I’m really curious how the economy would work if everyone sold free software, since this doesn’t seem like something that would work.
Potentially, the mistake is simply in thinking in terms of "selling software". Instead of software, you can simply sell development work. Not that that necessarily works in every market, but the point is that the model of repeatedly selling the end result of the development work is not the only way to make money by applying your expertise at developing software.
> Also, just a a final comment, I find it amusing that Stallman has these little nicknames for all the non-free things he doesn’t like. It seems to me a bit childish; I wonder if this actually helps him or it just makes other people feel like I do.
Well, the emotional reaction can be a problem for him being taken serious by some. But you have to consider that the status quo in many ways is not neutral, and also often the result of intentional framing by other parties. It's just that they are way better at hiding their manipulation from your view.
> Again, this doesn’t seem to me to be a “free software” argument. The reason this doesn’t usually happen with free software is that there is no central entity that controls the software, whereas with non-free software one company/server/person can control their products and “backdoor” them.
But that is the whole point! Software freedom is about power. The point isn't that it is impossible to licence malware under GPL, the point is that GPL gives the user the freedom to remove the malware parts. Your argument seems a bit like saying that claiming that free markets help with price discovery is a mischaracterization because people can offer overpriced products in a free market ... when the whole point of a free market is that the buyer has the option to not buy the overpriced product, and it's just completely irrelevant whether overpriced offers exist.
> So I’m really curious how the economy would work if everyone sold free software, since this doesn’t seem like something that would work.
Potentially, the mistake is simply in thinking in terms of "selling software". Instead of software, you can simply sell development work. Not that that necessarily works in every market, but the point is that the model of repeatedly selling the end result of the development work is not the only way to make money by applying your expertise at developing software.
> Also, just a a final comment, I find it amusing that Stallman has these little nicknames for all the non-free things he doesn’t like. It seems to me a bit childish; I wonder if this actually helps him or it just makes other people feel like I do.
Well, the emotional reaction can be a problem for him being taken serious by some. But you have to consider that the status quo in many ways is not neutral, and also often the result of intentional framing by other parties. It's just that they are way better at hiding their manipulation from your view.