It's likely that I'm misinterpreting Raymond/Stallman/et.al., but I'm developing the impression that they advocate corporately-supplied, free, & open source software, relegating all other software to the hobbyist category.
If my interpretation is true, and should they have their way, then software such as Firefox, most bulletin-board systems, WordPress & most other blogging software, ... none of these would ever have been developed under that aegis. OK, Google Chrome would have come along, but suggestions for adjustment/improvement would, in large, likely receive short shrift.
I particularly like - not! - the concept that if you can't make money as an independent programmer, you can always become a consultant. If programs are only corporately generated, just how much independent consulting would be viable? After all, wouldn't we be contacting the corporate entities for such?
mouser's 2nd bullet particularly strikes home with me. I'd not care to count the number of times I've mentioned - read whined about - some feature that would have been convenient for me only to find that within a period of days, perhaps a few weeks, the software developer had implemented that feature, or a better implementation of the concept, then informed me directly that it was available. That's happened as oft with freeware as with shareware, never with commercial ware. That's a practical result of - precursor to? - that 2nd bullet. And mouser is a prime example of just that attitude, as anyone who has followed his software threads can attest.
It seems to me that the Raymond/Stallman proposition(s) would put an end to that kind of responsiveness, an agility that no corporation will ever be able to match. They would also take innovation out of the development arena - corporations innovate only when they perceive a likely improvement to their bottom line. The Raymond/Stallman proposition(s), barring a significant alteration in corporate structure and attitudes, would curtail or limit, not enable, software development.
On a slightly different note, I'm not convinced that all software should be free. It strikes me that the usage of some [types of] software should carry a financial burden for the user(s). Perhaps be licensed, as well. And, of course, there is the matter of financial assistance to the developer(s). I like free as much as the next person, but I'm not averse to paying a reasonable [non-exorbitant] fee for software in order to own it.