I don't think anyone is saying you can't make money. It's just a lot more theoretical and difficult. Then if you weigh that difficulty against a possible moral judgment that perhaps making directly selling software isn't so bad after all then maybe the question is not really a necessary one.
It's like on one side you have those saying "Look, making money of this paradigm is not impossible. You can reinvent everything and turn it all upside down and slog through and you might be able to make money and earn a living, perhaps modest but hey." Then on the other you don't necessary have people that disagree with that view just their view is something "Sure, I agree you can do that. But there's nothing wrong with this so what's the matter?"
Usually, when people come up with all these ways to make money off of open source (like well paid speaking gigs) they are taking a few top 1% examples (like Linus) and not fully appreciating how much more either complex or difficult such a business model is. I think the more common way that programmers earn money from open source is to actually be funded to work on such projects from, usually, large companies that have made money in a variety of ways. Obviously, you can come up with counterexamples but my point is to keep in mind the likelihood of success.
Anyway, I'm certainly not against open source, I just don't think that program and earn money of said work are immoral or only able to be saved if they stop selling their software in that sense try to build a corollary business a part from the code.
"I just don't think that program[ming] and earn[ing] money [for] said work [is] immoral[.]"
This is a straw-man (unintentional, I presume). Even rms sold copies of Emacs once upon a time. No one objects to earning money for programming; they object to some of the restrictions we put in place in an attempt to make it easier to do that. If you don't agree that those restrictions are harmful, or think they are sufficiently outweighed by other factors, fine; but saying proprietary software is clearly fine simply because you don't object to programmers being paid is incomplete, confused, or dishonest.
It's like on one side you have those saying "Look, making money of this paradigm is not impossible. You can reinvent everything and turn it all upside down and slog through and you might be able to make money and earn a living, perhaps modest but hey." Then on the other you don't necessary have people that disagree with that view just their view is something "Sure, I agree you can do that. But there's nothing wrong with this so what's the matter?"
Usually, when people come up with all these ways to make money off of open source (like well paid speaking gigs) they are taking a few top 1% examples (like Linus) and not fully appreciating how much more either complex or difficult such a business model is. I think the more common way that programmers earn money from open source is to actually be funded to work on such projects from, usually, large companies that have made money in a variety of ways. Obviously, you can come up with counterexamples but my point is to keep in mind the likelihood of success.
Anyway, I'm certainly not against open source, I just don't think that program and earn money of said work are immoral or only able to be saved if they stop selling their software in that sense try to build a corollary business a part from the code.