I've yet to read it fully, and I'll have to, at some point . . . but it seems to me that all successful 'free'/open-source projects -- unless they're somehow getting their money by some conjoined foundation (and, no, this isn't even true with Mozilla) -- relies on some sort of scheme. Either the user is urged to pay something -- meaning the term "free" is only selective -- or the developers use other schemes like the sort search engines use, to bring in corporate dollars in exchange for favors like making their page the default page, or giving them a plug-in for the search-bar. (I think Firefox was the first to employ the search-bar plug-ins, but I might be wrong since I've used Firefox almost exclusively for the longest time.) ...Or they might do what Amazon does and charge everyone a marketing fee for every product that's sold on Amazon -- including the third-market sellers, obviously . . . which of course adds up to an awful lot of money, but . . . unfortunately for the book industry this fee also rips off or keeps out small presses.
Also, getting your money from large corporations causes incestuous problems that might have other unfortunate effects on the economy, regarding competition and highly unbalanced wealth distribution. With browsers: corporations like Google and Yahoo get favoritism. With Amazon: Bertelsmann / Random House benefit, while the small presses suffer. Large sellers in all fields gain while the small businesses suffer. For society as a whole, this is very unhealthy.
These are things the open-source/'free' model people really, really have to think about, I think. Do they employ schemes to free the user entirely, and do those schemes harm society as a whole?
Freeing the book industry is my concern, and I know how to do it . . . but I've said enough on that subject, in the past. I would need leverage to make it happen, and I don't have that.
Look! I've gone Platinum!