Most open source zealots (no offense intended; I use many open source software packages daily, and am currently experimenting with Ubuntu) push their cause with two supporting factors:
1) Open Source software is free of influence from "The Man" (unless his name is Linus, that is)
2) Open Source software can better than closed source software (in some cases)
But what about in countries where intellectual property protection doesn't exist? The fact that open source is legally free wouldn't make any difference, as its commercial counterparts (I.e. Microsoft Windows/Office/Etc...) are equally free. In fact, the argument can be made that in a world with high bandwidth costs and no intellectual property protection open source is actually more expensive than closed source, as you can buy pirated copies of closed-source software off the street, but need to spend days (weeks?) on an expensive Internet connection to download open source equivalents.
When Bill Gates was visiting the president of Romania a comment to this effect was made, that "Piracy helped the young generation discover computers. It set off the development of the IT industry in Romania" (those are the direct words of the Romanian president). In other words, pirated software is seen as an equalizer in some emerging countries.
Interesting food for thought - will open source ever become a real competitor while remaining free, or does something need to have a monetary value associated with it in order for people to appreciate it more? (a la the economic concept of ostentatious goods)
This post was inspired by http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=116907