You can turn this argument on any way of making money. Ooh, you think truth in advertising is more important than feeding my children!? Or from Facebook's persp

You can turn this argument on any way of making money. Ooh, you think truth in advertising is more important than feeding my children!? Or from Facebook's perspective--you think privacy is more important than feeding my children!? Really, it's a trite argument--just because something makes you money does not mean it's justified. If that was true, how could we justify punishing people like Madoff? This is actually a good parallel--nobody had to buy into Madoff's scheme, but if they did it hurt them. Nobody has to buy into proprietary software, but if they do they lose some of their rights. And, of course, this argument has another fatal weakness--just because you can't hide the source from your users does not mean you can't make money. If anything, the main reason free software is relatively weak in the market (although not that weak) is because of competition from proprietary software. If all software was free, you could expect making money that way to be easier. So really it's a flawed argument that would have been invalid even without the flaw.