The freedoms that the GPL gives to users in effect means giving your software away for free (because any single one of them is allowed to republish it openly). I do think there is a possible alternative model which gives most of the user freedom Stallman cared about but which doesn't produce this (something along the lines of being able to view the source code of software you buy, as well as modify it, but only being allowed to share the modifications with others who have bought the software, or only being allowed to distribute the patches as opposed to republishing the full software), but this hasn't really been tried as far as I know.

> Open Source never meant having to give your software away for free, it was always free as in speech.

Sure, sure. And how exactly is software not also free-as-in-beer when any consumer can just download it themselves?

> if there hadn't been the GCC there wouldn've been a ton of competing compilers.

As I already noted in reply to your sibling comment, which you conveniently chose to ignore, every single one of those competing compilers bar one is funded by big tech. You can count the number of compiler developers who make a living without being funded by big tech, in the entire world, on your hands. GCC development is itself supported by big tech.

> Google doing the same with Chrome, it's all just because of that evil Open Source.

Do you need to be reminded that Chromium is open-source software? There is no market for competition to Chrome because no browser developer could compete with "free". Firefox is open-source and also propped up by billions in Google funding. There are zero consumer-viable browsers that are not just a Chromium or Firefox reskin.