"Free software is about the freedom of the *users*, not the *coders*."
Yes, I know. In this aspect I hope that you were able to at least pick up on
the sentiment being communicated, even if she didn't use the right words.
"in what way the freedoms of the readers/spectators/... of an artistic work
are harmed if that work cannot be commercially used"
Apply those same questions to software. It's a multi-part answer.
Free software (and also free culture) is for everyone. Even people doing it
commercially (i.e., for money) like companies or individuals. Otherwise it
treats people differently, with different classes. (Because if if commercial
usage was disallowed for everyone else the copyright holder isn't barred from
doing it.) That means companies should have an equal right to free software
(and free culture) as individuals do and use the free software (and free
culture) stuff for their own purposes. Why can't they use that scheduling
program to manage the appointment schedule of their haircutting business
(i.e., a "commercial use.") So that's part 1.
Part 2 is: Do we want free software (and also free culture) to be limited to
the sidelines where people do the free software (and free culture) stuff only
at night and on weekends while during the day time they go back to their day
job making proprietary things instead? I certainly don't. I want free
software (and free culture) stuff to become culturally relevant, if not
dominant. And to eventually stamp out the non-free entirely. That means said
person needs to be able to quit their job and work on free software (and free
culture) things full time if they want to and still be able to pay their
rent. That would actually be a good thing: We need more free software (and
free culture) stuff - not less.
That means being able to make money from them. Don't forget that creativity
isn't just "I had this wonderful idea and now I am the only person that can
use it." See
http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative -
Part of being creative also includes reusing stuff from others, since it's
already derivative.
So let's look at it another way: Take Mimi and Eunice for example:
http://mimiandeunice.com/ Nina is no longer working on them. What's the harm
if someone decided that they wanted to continue making new episodes while
getting some money via, say, Patreon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patreon
There's no harm at all.
If we want free software (and free culture) to be more than a side activity
from hobbyists on nights and weekends doing bits here and there gratis then
money needs to be allowed.
And hence we have "a free program must be available for commercial use,
commercial development, and commercial distribution", says the FSF. The same
should apply to free culture too and for the same reasons.
