> Our solution to this problem is developing free software and rejecting proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and change the source code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to redistribute copies of your modified versions.
I'm not seeing how anyone is being denied profits. This seems focused on the user, and the choices the user should make, rather than the provider of the SaaS and what they ought or ought not to receive. Maybe I missed something?
> Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake.
I don't have a source to hand, but if I recall correctly, Stallman used to sell discs containing only Free Software, and made a profit doing so. That's in keeping with Free Software principles, although the Internet has mostly put an end to the practice (with exceptions like Red Hat). Stallman was also paid good money to implement enhancements to the GCC compiler suite.
It's also possible to accept donations for a Free Software project, or to offer to host the software as a paid service, or to charge for support (quite common in the GNU/Linux world, also with LibreOffice). Lastly, you can find a salaried job writing Free Software, such as Linux kernel development.
As someone already pointed out (unfortunately from a throwaway account), Free Software isn't against profit. They're pretty upfront about this. It's true that it can be very challenging to monetize Free Software, but that's an unfortunate harsh reality, not a tenet of the philosophy.
Incidentally this topic turned up yesterday over at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946073
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
This is also explained in the article, including a link to the page that defines "free" in this context.