Thing is, while the "Free" in "Free Software" is ambiguous, the "F" is FOSS has always meant "free as in freedom". It's not a new interpretation by feross (and I think the downvoters are reacting negatively to that suggestion).
Yeah, I think my wording in the original post is to blame here.
What I was trying to get across was that Feross has previously been vocal about his belief that his software was both FOSS and monetarily free. Now, he seems to be exploring the possibility that his code can still be FOSS, and monetarily free in concept, but perhaps walks the path Facebook, Google, et. al have that has lead to the much maligned cliche' "if you're not paying, you're the product." How far down that path does one have to go to lose the spirit of FOSS, if at all?
Well, the GNU project itself, and its founder (RMS), who is by any standard a strict follower of that philosophy, thinks that Free Software should be sold - and for as much as one can charge [1]. I'd say that the two are not really on the same path; if anything, they work against each other.
