I used to be what is sometimes called a "Free Software purist". "Free" here refers to "free as in freedom" according to Richard Stallman's Free Software Philosophy. As such I was opposed to all proprietary software licensing. If a program doesn't come with a license that allows you those "four freedoms" (to run, modify and share both unmodified and modified versions of the program as you wish) then using it meant you don't care for your freedom and are choosing to be a "slave" to the developer.
Unless you really want to believe in something you know is a lie you probably wont be inclined to believe people who express inconsistent ideas.
Free Software or Open Source Software have been typically attacked by people who do appear to believe quite strongly in property ownership. If you create something, they would argue, then you are entitled to control it. How else are you gonna get compensated for it?
As Apple's Steve Jobs is announcing that they suddenly "want native third-party applications on the iPhone", something its users have been yearning to have ever since they started buying these phones (even if it meant hacking them), Steve justifies their prior resistance to this kind of openness by security threats. As he says, they are "trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once â€” provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."
Large parts of the free software community are rather hostile towards women, as unfortunately is usual in communities with a huge male majority. Which then prevents the community from becoming balanced because it will be unattractive to women.