No. He starts talking about FOSS - MIT and BSD stuff. This is nearly in every case free economically. And the GPL stuff is almost always free economically too. In practice if you give people complete freedom over sources you really have to give them the same freedom you have to change and distribute. So by undercutting price tends aymptotically to zero. People know that and so they make it free from the outset. They make their money from hand-holding.
My understanding of what he said was - to paraphrase and re-interpret a bit - "Free software is BS, because nothing is (as you put it) 'free economically'."
That's two meanings of the word 'free' in one proposition. The first refers to the rights of the users, and the second refers to putting in labor or cash to create something. The fact that the two might be closely related in practice doesn't matter. For this to work, you'd have to make the additional claim "Free-as-in-Speech is identical to Free-as-in-Beer", which would be insane. See: OpenBSD's cd sales.
Additionally, he's throwing in a third concept, which we could safely call "Free-as-in-Lunch".
What he seems to believe is "Free-as-in-Speech software is BS because nothing is Free-as-in-Lunch". Which I still disagree with, but I think would be a more direct way of expressing the point without using confusion about "free" to a rhetorical advantage.
Actually, the biggest problem is his confusion of free (as in price) with cost-less. Nothing is or can be cost-less, but that has little to do with the price charged for it.
