The main goal of the open-source movement is not necessarily free from price, but free as in freedom. The main freedom is having access to the source code for the software; and being able to use, share and modify it freely. Giving away the software for free can be described as a "philanthropic" cause. The person/company that releases their software under an open-source license believes that the software they're developing can better benefit more people if they were free to use it. Another reason for giving the software away for free is because of the usual formation of a community. This community of users and developers help support and develop the software. This results in the software being developed quicker and more efficiently than could be possible without a community. Henceforth, the development costs are greatly reduced, and these saving and benefits are given back to the users in the form of high quality free software.

An open-source license does not prohibit sale of the software. The first freedom of open-source is free redistribution: "the software can be freely given away or sold". A company can sell the software, but then they can't stop anyone else from also selling it or giving it away for free. Because of this and the "philanthropic" belief in spreading of software freely, most open-source software is free from the original distributor/developer. Most companies instead make their money on support or contracts. But, there are still companies that do sell their open-source software. Both Red Hat and Novell sell their Linux distributions. While there's total freedom in price for the object code (machine instructions that are directly executable), the source code has limitations on its price. The source code must be freely attainable at no cost to anyone interested in it.

Open-Source is a whole category or type of software that is radically different from other software. The best way to explain the differences would be to give an analogy. Let's equate software and programs to medicine. Source code would be like the formula of the medicine. Now as a company or individual developing and distributing the medicine you have a few choices of what to do with the medicine and formula:

• Proprietary Method: You sell the medicine for an exorbitant price, well over the cost of developing and producing it. You hire a team of investigators to catch anyone using your medicine without paying you for it. Anyone found "pirating" your medicine, you sue them for all they're worth. The formula is a highly guarded secret, and no one but a few loyal people are allowed to know it. Everyone else just has to trust that you're not poisoning people by the ingredients or the way you produce your medicine.
• Freeware Method: Unlike the fully proprietary method, you give out the medicine for free. Instead of suing anyone that shares your medicine, you only sue people that are making a "profit" off your medicine. But still like with the proprietary, the formula is a secret, and people have to trust that you're not trying to kill them.
• Open-Source Method: To maximize the benefits that your medicine has, you give it out for free or for a nominal charge. You do not sue people for sharing your medicine, even if they make a profit, actually you encourage sharing! You know that your medicine is only useful if people are free to use it. You also post the formula on your website with detailed explanations on how to use it to make the medicine. You do this because you know that there are highly intelligent people that can volunteer their time to help you develop the medicine. Because of the helpful volunteers, you can quickly perfect the medicine at a reduced cost.

The advantages are numerous, but they can be categorized into a few major areas:

• Price: Since the software is freely redistributable it can be obtained at no cost; the only cost being for support. This means that governments, businesses and individuals will all see a drastic increase in savings. Also, the companies sponsoring the development of the software will also see a decrease in expenses because not only will paid programmers be developing the software but also a community of volunteers.
• Vendor Lock-In: Most companies use trade secrets, proprietary formats, etc., to "lock-in" their customers into using their software. Because the source code is not accessible, it makes it nearly impossible for competitors to create programs that are able to read/write to the company's proprietary file format. Open-Source software on the other hand is immune to vendor lock-in because it's not in their interest to prevent their users from accessing their own files, as this would go against freedom.

Fundamentally, there are no problems with the open-source ideology. In fact, it is superior to alternatives like proprietary restriction. The only draw back happens when open-source software must compete with a proprietary company that unfairly tries to undermine all open-source development.