Your statements all seem correct, but its important to point out (and I think this is what you're trying to do) that the logic is based on meeting the needs of

Your statements all seem correct, but its important to point out (and I think this is what you're trying to do) that the logic is based on meeting the needs of vendors/businesses, not the needs of users. What percentage of people own businesses? What percentage of people use things? ergo What benefits more people: reducing spending for products, or increasing business profits? Some things are best resolved by a profit seeking model, but far far from all things. How many billions of dollars in expenditures would be saved, if institutional users (schools, universities, large businesses, trade/professional organizations) developed s/w for their own use, and shared it via a GPL license? Instead, (statistically) all of these orgs accept the "philanthropic" "gifts" of for-profit s/w products, and subsequently lock all members of each demographic into a lifetime of purchasing that s/w. It's like giving out "free" heroin in high schools. The lifetime profits are enormous. Think AutoCAD, but also everyone paying for simple things like Word/Excel/etc. Often, these desktop applications have already been paid for by the h/w maker, making it even more obfuscated from the user. Widely deployed software freedom would save users billions of dollars, but instead of presenting this as a giant saving, it's presented as a terrible detriment to "business". This is the propaganda that has brain damaged the US population. The idea that benefiting corporations is benefiting them.