If I am to judge by your other reply to me in this thread, you yourself know that it's quite deceitful to say that I can charge money for GPLed software. Yes I can charge money, but I'm obliged to supply the tools needed so that any half-competent programmer can undercut me by 100%, meaning that I can't actually receive money by selling my software, because you can always download the same software legally for free.
I wasn't being intentionally deceitful, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
With regards to "charging money for GPLed software", I agree with you completely: if you write GPL software, it is almost impossible to make money by selling that software on the open market. The first customer you ensnare is given access to the source code, as well as the right to redistribute your work under the same conditions that you do, blowing up your entire business model.
I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but let me quote your original post and explain why I don't feel the above detracts from my point:
I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal.
The goals of the FSF (and thus Stallman, if only by his function as president) have nothing to do with money. The fact that there are ways of making money in the sofware world that are compatible with the GPL license is evidence of this. I mentioned some in my other post. This may not be as profitable as straight up selling (or renting out) the right to use your software, but that is merely a side-effect, not the ultimate goal.
