The libre/gratis distinction is important, sure. But when rms argued against "programs as property" here, there were certain implications about pricing models t

The libre/gratis distinction is important, sure. But when rms argued against "programs as property" here, there were certain implications about pricing models that came along for the ride, whether that was his primary intention or not. My argument is really a (somewhat tongue in cheek) rebuttal to people who think libre software, which incidentally tends to be gratis, can never be high quality or sustainable.