Free software also predates "free software." People circulated programs within the science and hobbyists communities, as early as those communities existed. And before there was software, the ham radio community thrived on shared and published designs.

With that said, I appreciate what Stallman has done, if nothing else, to shine light on what freedoms we're giving up, and on the contrasts between the different free and non-free models that are in use today.

Free software is not no cost, it is free as in freedom. Didn't the FSF sell SunOS and Solaris free software when they first started out? It could be sold for the cost of maintenance or supporting the free software, which the user doesn't always get.

With Microsoft and Apple the software is commercial and not free, but they do a good job of handholding the customer and working through bugs and technical issues over the phone.

It's not like permissive licenses are a crazy hard concept to figure out. It's not like Fermat's last theorem where there is a large challenge in discovering a proof. Sure it may not be labelled as "Open Source", but there would be something similar. Also I believe there is a good chance that software would be more free due to copyleft licenses potentially not gaining momentum.

They're not hard, and I think Stallman et al figured them out way long ago, and they are why they created free software. Roughly, "permissive" ends up meaning "bad faith actors are permitted to take advantage of others' spirit of sharing."