Earlier quoted context omitted.
FS dogma says you should charge as much as you want, in order to recoup the costs of developing free software. That Microsoft wants to turn freeholder software developers into sharecroppers doesn't affect what "free software" means.
Interesting, where does it say that? Also how does paying "rent for a spot in the marketplace" turn a freeholder into a sharecropper?
I thought you didn't want me quoting from a FS site.
Quoting the high church of orthodoxy at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding." ...
"Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't make the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it."
I see you've complained thrice about people using the "'free software' orthodoxy", but if you don't know about this essay it sounds like you only know the heterodoxy.
> "rent for a spot in the marketplace"
As Apple and Microsoft make it harder and harder to enter the marketplace without paying rent (and in the name of security) it becomes harder and harder to make a living writing software without paying that rent.