It's a little weird to suggest that just because someone wants to use the product of someone else's work only for a short time, that use "should" be free.

If you are offering free samples of your product, you shouldn't get mad at the people who don't need your product for more.

But likewise, a hungry person isn't entitled to every sample on the tray - just one. They're samples.

I think the context of “should” matters quite a bit here. For example the claim that everyone should have free access as if by right is quite different than the claim that as the producer of said software this is your best bet.

I mean, it's not strange to think that the ideal state for software is "used as widely as possible while maximizing profit."

That's definitely a strange ideal, to put it politely. Human welfare should be maximized instead.

???

That is very strange.

This essentially is how tailscale operates (or did last I was in this space). Home/small use totally free, and experimentation seems encouraged.

> https://tailscale.com/pricing

I have genuinely deployed tailscale in paying locations on basis of my really positive experience on the "Personal" plan, which is effectively almost the whole product for up to three users/100 devices, for free.

I don't think there is a universally right answer for all products/services on this question though.