I disagree somewhat with the assertion that people are annoyed about Reflector just because it used to be free and now won't be - there's a bit more to it than that. The extra hate comes from the fact that it was a personal project of one person who gave it away for a long time. To a lot of people it's like a park that the owner used to let the public use for free has been sold off to a corportation and now they're charging people to go play there.
When Lutz decided he didn't want to manage Reflector any more he could have open sourced it, but he sold it to RedGate instead. That's his right of course, but by the same right, people should be just as annoyed at Lutz for selling it to RedGate as they are with RedGate for charging for it now. Of course they're not attacking Lutz, partly because it's not directly his decision to start charging for it (even though this is the inevitable consequence of selling it to corporation), and partly because they're still grateful to him for making available for free for all those years.
Thinking about Dan's suggestion that companies should charge for software if they ever plan to charge for it in the future, I tried to think of examples of where this has been a PR problem in the past and I can only think of situations where an existing product or company was bought by a much larger corporation that then discontinued the free version. When Autodesk acquired Alias, they discontinued the free learning version of Maya. They later acquired Softimage and while the free 'modtool' verison of Softimage remains available, it's frozen at the version it was at when they where were acquired. I wonder if anyone has got counter-examples?