That appears to be a myth. From everything that I've seen, you'll have to pay some sort of licensing fees on Galileo equipment. That's the business model they're proposing. That's all well and good, but hardly free.

I own 2 GPS receivers. I don't have to pay anything to use them. They're old handheld models. I can buy a newer model with WAAS receiver capability for greater accuracy, but for now I don't need one. Ten meter accuracy is more than enough for a backup navigation source. If I buy a certified panel mounted model for my plane, I'll have to pay for the IFR database updates, typically about $300 a year. That money would go to Jeppesen for the database, not the government. My tax dollars are and continue to pay for the GPS system.

In the earlier days of GPS, they used selective availability (SA) to lower the accuracy to roughly 100 meters. That's still good enough for most purposes but not enough to be used for targeting a weapon like JDAMS. SA has been turned off for some time and they've developed much more tailored approaches to reducing (or increasing) accuracy in an area.

The very reason why SA was established will apply to Galileo as well. It's accuracy is good enough to target weapons (you can build a low tech cruise missile out of almost anything that flies). Galileo also has an SA capability, but the bureaucracy behind it might not make it responsive enough should the need arise. If it turns out that Galileo signals are being used to target weapons against the US military, I'm pretty sure they'll take some action to degrade the accuracy in that area. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.