&gt;Quid-pro-quo: the undeniable biological, evolutionary instinct to receive something (money) for a rendered service&#x2F;product (software) simply cannot be deemed criminal.<p>FSF&#x2F;Stallman in way claims that charging for software is criminal or even unethical.<p>The whole point of Free Software is to give and preserve rights for end users, rights which enable end users to do what they want with the software they recieve, like examining it to make sure it doesn&#x27;t do anything bad (for the user), modifying it to do what the end user wants, copy it, etc.<p>Now obviously this makes it incompatible with the traditional way of commercial software, which is proprietary distribution of binaries, which often also comes with DRM schemes further limiting what the end user can do with said software, and worst case, exploiting the end user by enganging in hidden or poorly-disclosed unwanted actions (spyware, rootkits etc).