I'm not sure if you're purposefully not understanding my counter-argument, but I'm gonna assume you're arguing in good faith here.
Your original argument was that because "labor, materials, energy and machinery" cost money, there is no use of free knowledge.
My counter-argument is that the one with the knowledge is not necessarily the same person/community that provides the label, materials, energy and/or machinery.
So it's still useful to have free and open knowledge published and consumed, as you never know who can be helped by it, no matter if they have the funds to use it or not. Others might have the funds, and can help by providing material etc.
My argument was never that money is evil and shouldn't exist anywhere, not sure why you went there.
Hope this helps you understand what I meant with my previous comment.
- Those were not produced for free
> get gifted from others
- Others paid for those
> build themselves
- Out of free materials or without any need to buy food and pay bills?
> things cost money is a dangerous view
It's dangerous only to idealistic outlook where money is evil and not a mere heat carrier.
Now, banksters' interest-driven monetary system based on debt is evil, but that's another topic.