The ethics of Stallman's arguments don't matter in the least, and they never have. He's like a guy in 1905 trying to get people to keep using horses. He's been on the wrong side of history for so long that you can no longer even detect that there was a history to be on the wrong side of: he just floats out there in his own strange little bubble of ideals. You have to respect his dedication to those ideas, but there isn't much relevancy left.
He's been on the right side of history and the rest of us have been on the wrong side. I think the Snowden leaks solidify that view. After Microsoft Windows how could you disagree with him on concerns of proprietary software lock-in? And he's been spot-on as far as privacy goes: worried about the cloud long before anyone else, and concerned about cell-phone surveillance before it was hip. The mere existence of GNU licenses has done enormous good for the world, and Linux is proof. Linux didn't take off because of his ethics, so you're right in that regard, but his ethics are responsible for the things that people like about free software.
And this being hacker news, you have to admire the great hack that is the GPL.
History says that despite the fact that these "wrongs" have taken place, that people largely do not care. So, what does it mean to be "wrong"? Likewise, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there...does it really matter?
I could also argue that Linux is generally holding the world back. Just like wrong and right...this whole thing is a matter of opinion and point of view. There are simply no absolutes to measure against.
He's like a guy in 1905 trying to get people to keep using horses.
Or perhaps he's the guy in 1905 trying to get people to keep using electric cars. In 120 years time it might turn out that he was onto something all along.
What do you mean by the "wrong" side of history? I only see one or two reasonable arguments that can be made against Stallman -- he might be out of touch, he definitely values personal freedom over convenience... But it's a bit early to cast a value judgement saying he's on the wrong side of history.
I see him as someone who values things differently than I do, but I also could see a future 150 years down the road where people bemoan and wail, "why didn't we listen to Stallman".
Well certainly that's part of it. But what I really mean is that he is like Edison on the subject of DC. Right on the big picture, but obsessed with his own ideal of the implementation.
I wonder if this is an argument spawned of fear (that what he says is true, that it is 100% accurate and it is that bad), or is there really something that lets you believe that he's wrong.
Maybe we didn't see enough bullshit put into proprietary programs? Not enough backdoors? Not enough DRM maybe?
This may be an unpopular opinion but it certainly is a valid one. I tend to side with it.
