I'm not really concerned about RMS. I just pointed out that he isn't about "open".
To the extent that you're fond of free software and RMS, that's nice, but the topic is TFA.
Alright, we're discussing "open" vs "free". Right now I don't care too much about semantics..
For anyone reading this that don't know what we're on about , read --> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...
(edit: I generally agree with RMS's points. I might confuse "open" and "free". For anyone not native to English these words might be interchangeable. I'm not a native English speaker. It becomes clearer when you define the words such as done in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... , but in a day to day conversation, it's easy to get the exact definitions wrong)
"Alright, we're discussing "open" vs "free"."
No, we're not discussing one thing vs. another, we're discussing different things. That is a whole other situation entirely.
(yea I realized my distance from the TFA half way through my first post.. but decided to post anyway. (possibly a bad decision). And it has lead to a bit of a discussion. Which is good -- which is what I like)
I don't know specifically what RMS has said and has not said. For the most of it I'm not interested. What I am interested in are the actions. Like him or not, but RMS has clearly done good things for anyone who believes computers should be devices that you and I are free to hack on on your own.
(I'm carefully avoiding your TFA quote because I have nothing useful to comment on that. Yes, I agree that the API only has value because it's coming from this one company. I don't really think this has much to do with openness).