Are there? I would believe that there are many who don't care, or many who are dismissive at a rather shallow level. But I'm not aware of having seen a good, intellectual critique of "free" software.
1. An ardent defense of capitalism and private property.
2. A critique of open source as a superior software development methodology.
You'll find shades of (1) in various defenses of competing open source licenses (e.g. BSD). But also, (1) is a pretty common attitude in software development circles (a majority of the libertarians I know are software people).
(2) is a lot less common in developer crowds, I think in part because when evaluated as a purely factual and categorical claim, it's trivial to prove false. Many of the most successful software projects in the world are open source.
The economic argument against (2) is far more common -- and is made in this thread by sprafa for example.
Surprisingly, there are also moral arguments against (2) -- see e.g. https://acmsonline.org/home2/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/VanD...
TBF the moral case against (2) probably really is as rare as you claim (which is a good thing IMO).
But the intersection of (1) and (2) isn't impossible to imagine, and I think there are a lot of developers who get close to this confluence of opinions. Or at least a lot closer than they are to "Stallmanist" freedom.
-2¢
Stallman's philosophy is that all software should be Free because the users deserve it, not because the author wishes it to be.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.en.html
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.en...
Proprietary licences will sometimes prohibit resale or modification, for instance. Licences like the GPL do the exact opposite: they allow modification and resale under the condition that these subsequent derivative works are licensed under the same terms (if distributed).
I would have thought being able to decide the conditions under which others can use your private property is an idea the most ardent capitalist would support.
However, OpenBSD (my second choice of system) does not, and they've been vocal in the past.
https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43
It's pretty simple - freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes in a proprietary environment. That includes whatever you want it to include. The other three freedoms then tell you "except in some ways we personally don't like."
They also don't like the FSF much. They have done some things that are a little controversial, like require devs to cede ownership of code so that the FSF can relicense when they want to (mostly to new versions of the GPL).
What you mean is probably copyleft licensing which is only a subset of free software licenses. Copyleft means that you cannot redistribute the software and its derivatives unless you give the freedoms down the road to your clients/users as well.
However, there are free software licenses that aren't copyleft too.
Yep, that's what I meant! Sorry, wrote that one late last night...