ppopoff

Seriously? How about the McDonalds, and Ray Kroc? Never heard of those names?

Except that Stallman uses what you identify as name-calling all the time (cf. Amazon Swindle).

Also, the oft-repeated notion that "piracy" is a contemporary slur invented to associate copyright infringers with violence on the high seas is simply wrong. It's documented since 1603 (The Wonderfull yeare, T. Dekker), and is the term used by the 1883 Berne Convention. That's covers most of the history of the word in English usage.

Fine if you want to change the dialogue on IP, especially based on changing technology, but that doesn't justify rewriting history.

Brexit is not a pejorative corruption of a pre-existing name or term. Incidentally, it's a basically neutral coinage used by both Leave and Remain camps.

I would even agree that RMS appropriated the term free, but what your statement that RMS says free == copyleft is not remotely true and contradicted by your "source." His definition of "free" is aligned with the OSI definition of "open source" (the term he dislikes). RMS is a waterbearer for copyleft because he doesn't respect proprietary uses, but he includes BSD/MIT licenses under his definition of "free." He doesn't include software that has public source but restricts free commercial use, modification etc.

This notion of free though certainly isn't what most nonhackers/software people would generally associate with the term. It's his formulation.

> Nearly 20 years later, it's clear that Stallman is almost certain to be a historical figure remembered hundreds of years from now.

Hyperbole much? He's not going to be forgotten, but... RMS is a hacker icon, but he's a bit obscure outside the community. RMS is legit hating on Facebook here but there's no Hollywood movie about RMS. Zuckerberg is a household name. I'll agree that RMS has done more net good thank Zuckerberg, but who is more likely to show up in a textbook a hundred years removed at this rate?

I have mixed feelings about RMS's use of language, but I think you exactly illustrate beagle3's point. Perhaps they are just as valid, but if the contrasting term is just as valid and more in tune with your views, then you might object to the dominant term.

> Copy protection protects CDs from being copied.

The contention is of course with the word "protection." It implies that copying is a bad thing and that preventing copying is protection. It's a loaded word, even if in general use. Replacing with "restriction" challenges this this notion with a word loaded in the opposite direction.

> Digital rights management manages the rights of the IP owner.

The assumption here is that the restrictions on use are in fact "rights of the IP owner." There is no a priori reason that there should be. In fact IP rights are a part of law and public policy. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be; obviously Stallman and beagle3 disagree.