I would like to see the OSS community just at admit that they are funded by companies that make money selling stuff.
I trust that the correct adjective in discussion is philanthropic. This argument demonstrates a confusion between the idea of software as a product and software as a service. It is equally absurd to say that the programmers that work for proprietary developers
are being paid for the software they write, since, the work that they do is owned by the companies where they work and they are being paid by the companies for their time, unless the programmers are gettiing to some sort of royalty for their work of which
outsiders aren't aware. Truthfully speaking, every programmer with any company anywhere is writing software as a service which is subsequently made into a product by their employers who benefit from this work much more then the programmers they employ.
The contention of free software as I have come to understand is that software should be distributed to the user as a service with four basic guaranteed freedoms, freedoms that are shared equally by its participants public and private, and not defined by which
companies give them financial backing.
I agree with what you are saying. If there is a "good" model where companies can open source all of there software and still make a profit I would like to here it.
I don't think the idea of a customer getting the free software then having to pay for support or consultants is a good model either.
The software industry is the the only industry where people think that every should have free access to what I create, or what my company pays me to create.
If you equate building software to building a home they are very similar. However, unless I perform some kind sweat equity on my home I have to pay the builder for his time. The same fairness should be given to software developers.
If people are willing to pay for the software and get the source that is fine. As long as they don't priate the source and give it to their friends.