> No it isn't. It's to demand the work of others be free for consumption by anyone without compensation. Users have a choice - free software (there are very few categories of end-user tools that I can think of that aren't well served by open source these days), or commercial software.
SUSE, RedHat and numerous other companies make plenty of money selling free software (and selling support for it). This is is "commercial free software". You don't seem to understand what "free software" refers to. It does not refer to price. It refers to freedom.
> If the free software movement cared about freedom they would recognize that preserving user choice is a more important and lofty goal than just saying free all the things.
You are redefining the word freedom. Freedom refers to control over your own life. You don't have such control when using proprietary software. The only way to have such control is the 4 fundamental freedoms. Any other definition is just muddying the waters.
> A militant approach to demanding that everything be free is an entitlement that doesn't value the disproportionate investment of resources (time, money, energy, etc) that software developers invest in their work in contrast to the value that users extract from that expenditure.
Given that Linux and GNU exist, and are being sold and have funding from large companies, I call bullshit. Just because some companies have decided to sell proprietary software doesn't mean that suddenly it isn't possible to sell free software.
> Software developers should be free to release software for free if they choose to, and users should have the right to use software that has been released for free (for example, unencumbered by hardware manufacturer restrictions that exist strictly to prevent the end user installing chosen software), but demanding the work of others for free is nonsense.
Again, you're not understanding what free software is. It is software which respects your freedom. It does not have to be gratis (without price) in order to respect your freedom.