the problem is he also have so f**g wrong opinions about so much s*t, but yes when it come to software he was right all the way, that make follow him a mental gymnastics marathon.

I haven't followed him for over 15 years when he started branching out from software into other things. What crazy has he accumulated since?

Spoken like a person who has never attempted to give Richard Stallman a parrot.

I just googled that reference. Weugh.

The whole rider is pretty nutty. Even on fairly mundane requirements he manages to sound a bit crazy. "I absolutely refuse to have a break in the middle of my speech. Once I start, I will go straight through." Presumably at some point he said he didn't want to take a break but someone stuck a break in the agenda anyway and he decided to declare his intention to throw a fit if that ever happens again. It reads a little like "100 ways in which RMS cannot handle the unexpected."

> he also have so f*g wrong opinions about so much s*t

Care to provide examples?

I'm hoping to see a GPL revival with a shift back from MIT/BSD. But one can hope.

Big corps won't let that happen. They make too much from MIT/BSD.

Look at FAANG and other companies' policy towards the GPL and their abuse of BSD, and I think it is pretty clear what's up.

Do you have any links about their BSD abuse? I would like to read more.

> their abuse of BSD

It's perfect by legitimate to prefer copyleft, but I struggle to take seriously the idea that a license can be abused by following its terms, particularly when the reason people put stuff under permissive licenses is to let anyone do whatever they want with it without giving back.

How is a totalitarian state's actions are related with MIT/BSD anyway? It is absurd to think that states care about software licenses.

Struggled to parse this, but why would it be a problem that he was wrong about things outside his speciality? A professor of astrophysics being "wrong" about his opinions on whether eating meat is ethical says very little about how right he is on exoplanet mass distributions.

(I happen to agree with Stallman on his non-software views that I know about, so am a bit curious on what you disagree with)

Hence the fitting subredddit https://old.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight

The Cassandra point is interesting.

I think the loss of freedoms Richard Stallman described were very much what was already happening around in with the Lisp environment. He was correct in saying this would be repeated as software ate the world.

So roughly the things he was right about were very hard to prevent. Which is partly why he was right.

I'm not very familiar with the Lisp environment but what Stallman always argued was the logical conclusion of the current (at the time state) of software freedom and redistribution. Nothing being codified was ripe for abuse and misuse, but because the general community consisted of altruistic "doo-gooders" that reality always seemed very far away.

Stallman came up in the time of mainframes and dumb terminals; so he had mainframe concerns and mainframe critiques.

His relevance now is because we too have shifted to mainframes, but we don't call it mainframe and dumb terminals anymore, we say 'cloud' and 'mobile'. We are rebuilding the future in effigy of our past because it's what we know. Stallman's critiques being relevant again are a testament to the cyclical nature of humanity, like bellbottoms, hightop fades, and vinyl records.

Now if you don't mind, I must iron these JNCO's, times-a-wasting!

There should be an adage, an internet one at least, along the lines of - The older one gets, the more one agrees with Stallman.

Going one step further I will add: the older one gets the more one becomes like Stallman, lol.

(I think the reactions of ordinary people to Stallman's views are quite predictable, mention sex and they go bonkers. )