Free software straw men.
Open Source Myths - by Neil Gunton
One of the central tenets of the Open Source philosophy (as it seems to be understood by the average person, at any rate) is that all software should be free. This seems a little unrealistic to me, for one glaringly simple reason: Development takes time and effort, and the rest of the world that we all live in is most certainly NOT free. We have to pay for everything else - a place to live, food, clothing, services, you name it. Even artists have a socially-accepted way to make money, and art is possibly one of the closest things to programming. So I fail to see the reasoning behind the suggestion that I should be expected to provide the fruits of my labor to the world for no financial reward.
I understand what this guy is saying, and to a certain extent I agree with it. But you've gotta compete. "Software should not be free because I want to make a lot of money writing it" is not a compelling argument against the commoditization of software. The art analogy he refers to reinforces this. Few people get rich making art. Most artists work a day job to support their creative activities. They may be even more motivated, given that they continue to do it despite the difficulty of making a living at it.
Besides, what's the solution? Ban free software? The barn door is long since open. Innovate or die.