GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be parasitic to the open source world.
Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.
Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not 'commercial software.
Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
If Stallman wanted to kill commercial software he would have put wording into the GPL to prevent its use in commercial products. As it stands I can still use the GPL on a commercial product, of course it is a rather odd choice since the user is free to take the work and redistribute it, which is why going the commercial support route is much more typical.
Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.