There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

Free NEVER refers to value. Free refers to price. Also, free does not refer to cost - everything has a cost, even if only the opportunity cost of the time used making or acquiring the free software (or anything else free). Actually, the time acquiring and learning to use the software is why I still use MS software for a lot of things that aren't worth my time fiddling with.

This article is difficult to understand because it is written as a flamebait rather than an objective critique.

Here is what I understand so far. His primary point is that for a FOSS project it is not easy to have it economically self-sustainable. I believe he is almost correct on this point and counter arguments exist elsewhere in this thread and on the internet. As for whether FOSS is useful or not or how to solve the problem described, he gives no suggestion. However, he does take many cheap shots at RMS and FOSS supporters.

Anyhow, my counterpoint, which I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, is the contribution of FOSS is beyond direct monetary compensation. For organizations FOSS provides cheap, commoditized off-the-shelf parts for internal software projects. For consumers, FOSS allows independence from software producers and system lock-ins. These benefits are real in economic terms and can not simply be waved away.

Of course large, important projects require a certain amount of funding to succeed. I'm not sure where this is really disputed, I don't see the actual argument the author is railing against. Fedora Linux may not generate revenue directly, but it is an important component to the development of RHEL, which is the core component of Red Hat's highly successful business model.

There are many, many, many organizations of all types all over the world that use different economic models to fund various different interests. I sing in a choir. We're a non-profit organization and raise money in a variety of ways to pay for music, a professional director, various instrument ensembles, venues to perform in, and people to record the concerts. The choir itself is auditioned, but all volunteer. We spend a few hours per week for fun because it enriches our lives, and as a result people get to come enjoy our concerts. Last spring we performed Mendelssohn's Elijah at Sanders Theater in Harvard Square. Unlikely to happen, but in theory the recording of that concert could become popular, and for a trivial cost via file sharing networks that performance could be listened to by 1 million people all over the world. Demand for those digital copies on that scale might average $0.001/per copy. Not worth it to try and charge for it anyway.

But we aren't a business. There are a few people associated with the choir who are compensated for their work. They are highly trained and skilled and put in more than the typical 3 hours per week. The rest of us are not paid and in fact pay dues. Is it really that different from the way an OSS project might work? 2-3 key maintainers and a hundred other contributors averaging 3-ish hours per week?

According to their website, WCVB-TV supports 484 non-profit organizations in the Boston area. http://cf.thebostonchannel.com/bos/sh/charity/front_charity....

There are many valid ways to fund software projects. Some of those projects turn out to be extremely successful and popular, and in many cases the Open Source nature of the product actually adds real value to end-users. Sure, there is some bad software, but I've used lots of bad software in my life, both free and not-free. The fact that people might be working without the compensation they might deserve in a perfectly balanced economic world is not really a big concern. That's life. It doesn't just apply to software, and the reverse is also true. It is most assuredly the case that some large companies are paying some programmers far more than they theoretically deserve for the software that company sells.

But what kind of point is that? If it was really paid for by the taxpayers, it should be free (free as in free beer and free as in free speech) because it was funded by taxpayers. How is arguing that it should not be free any kind of solution to this (imagined) problem?

Of course, but most of the time when software is created for an internal use, the company doesn't want to be in the business of selling said product.