I disagree, I think his evangelism is dangerous and offensive. He goes around telling programmers that they should give their code for free and he belittles anyone who doesn't follow his advice.
Now building a business with these constraint is not — as far as I know — a solved business model in the general case, but saying that RMS wants developers to "give their product for free" is a complete and absolute misrepresentation of his position.
Which is completely irrelevant to what you quoted.
> He goes around telling programmers that they should give their code for free
So I take it you have never looked at his writing or heart him speak, and only repeat fifth-hand earsay? Because if there's one thing RMS does not do it's tell people they should "give their code for free". RMS has (and talks about) issues with freedom-less software, not with paid software.
> and he belittles anyone who doesn't follow his advice.
Meanwhile you call him and his ideals "dangerous" and "offensive" for what you imagine are disagreements with your position?
My option is that RMS is going to far in his opposition to commercial software and in his zeal for freedom he sometimes promotes choices which I (and many others) disagree with. But his contributions are still great, despite all the disagreement.