I don't dispute it's a philosophy, but it's an extremist version. It's like having the choice between asceticism, living alone in the desert eating critters, versus extreme hedonism, gluttony and materialism. But most people reject both.
What I'm pointing out is that we could imagine a happy compromise where 99% of the goals of free software are achieved, that would not only allow developers to make a comfortable living, but also benefit the vast majority of people who use software without understanding technical complexities.
If the software:
- has source available, and anyone can study it and audit it;
- allows anyone to create, for their own use, derived or custom versions;
- allows anyone to make a business selling derived versions within the license terms (for example, in the time-bomb period the users of your patch must be licensees of the original owner);
- guarantees that the vendor cannot lock you in, and the software will become completely free after a certain date;
- generates resources for software development that would otherwise not be available, so that functionality could only exist in proprietary, closed source form,
... then, I belive, the loss, for a limited span of time, of the ability to use it gratis is a very good overall compromise. We all understand and accept the idea that work must be paid and that a price tag designates something valuable, that is worth making and paying for. Don't castigate money ideologically, use them to achieve the philosophic goals.
Somewhere, somebody pulled a dirty trick on OSS developers and moved the goalposts to "and you must now renounce all material possessions and live on pure ether".