> It's not that the software might not be good, or might not help them, but "it should just be free". The problem is not that the software is unfree (i.e. the

> It's not that the software might not be good, or might not help them, but "it should just be free". The problem is not that the software is unfree (i.e. the software costs money), the problem is that the software is unfree (i.e. the license is proprietary). Source-available software is usually not as flexible as free and open source software, because it has additional restrictions on how the code can be used or redistributed. When there are two software options with equivalent feature sets, and one is source-available while the other is FOSS, it makes sense in many cases to prefer the FOSS one for its more flexible licensing. The main exception is if a developer is selling proprietary software and wants to incorporate copylefted FOSS in a way that would be incompatible with the license, in which case a custom licensing agreement (multi-licensing) could satisfy both parties.