You are quoting the FSF's stand on the issue (which I don't have a problem with) but not Stallman's.
Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly. For example, a quick Google search returned this interview [1]:
> BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living.
>
> Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that other people wrote.
Stallman has been consistent for decades in holding this view.
What I am quoting was, as is noted at the foot of the page I linked, published in "Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman" and I am pretty confident it was in fact written by him. It strikes me as consistent with his other writings.
The interchange you cite doesn't conflict with this view at all (or if you really think it does, please explain how). First, "selling software" is not the sum total of "commercial software", which is what was being discussed. Second it is not "selling software" that Stallman opposes, first order, but restrictions on freedoms of users to the end of selling software. This should be apparent from the fact that Stallman himself (as is noted in the OP here) sold copies of EMACS back when copying was less trivial. It's certainly the case that triviality of mass copying plus the FSF's "freedom 2" means that it is practically difficult to sell anything but the first copy (because people can simply get a copy elsewhere) but I'd argue that is precisely what Stallman is doing when consulting: selling that first copy.
Actually, I was at a lecture by RMS where he said "if someone wants to pay Eur 30K for your work, by all means, charge them Eur 30K".
Often it's not practical to charge for the software itself, because people know they can typically download it for free (as in beer) . In that case, you should charge for consulting. (Which is what RMS does)
> Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold
There is very little in this world any more completely and clearly false as that statement. Stallman has himself sold software and advocates that others do so too, in fact selling software is one of the freedoms he advocates that must be protected!
"Since “free” refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software."
Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly. For example, a quick Google search returned this interview [1]:
Stallman has been consistent for decades in holding this view.[1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html