I think the past decade has shown that free, open source, and completely proprietary software can all co-exist without negatively affecting consumer choice.
My paycheck disagrees with the assertion that the model relies on programmers being paid by MIT.
It's certainly less profitable than writing proprietary code, but I see no reason why it can't pay for millions of programmers' salaries. And no, the fact that it doesn't right now is not proof of that, because proprietary software crowds out free software jobs. I'm talking about the hypothetical situation of all software written being Free.
People who write proprietary software generally take on harder problems before the free software community (from AT&T to Google), and are quite generous with their fortunes once they make them.
I'm not concerned when producers of good things make money, I'm happy when I see that happening, as opposed to non-producers like financial vultures making all the money while being destructive to society.
Peer review in major academic publications typically. Philosophy is a lot more rigorous than many imagine. RMS' ideas are interesting, and may even form the basis of some philosophical positions in the future, but I would not call him a philosopher in the academic sense. A lot of the distinction is wrapped up in culture and context. As a programmer, I work on subjects that delve heavily in mathematics, but I would not call myself a mathematician, because I am not part of that culture or the peer review process.