To clarify what I was intending to say, but didn't make as clear as I should have (I was posting from the iPhone). 1. RMS is incredibly consistent in what he s

To clarify what I was intending to say, but didn't make as clear as I should have (I was posting from the iPhone). 1. RMS is incredibly consistent in what he says. He is a zealot in the best sense of the word. When he talks about software freedom, he always means the four freedoms, and he does his absolute hardest to never compromise his principles. This is (mostly) admirable[1], if infuriating because pragmatism would often get his arguments further IMO. However, 2. RMS is not the FSF, and not everyone who works with or for the FSF is as rigorous with their use of software freedom in discussions. When you step even further outside of the circle to those who support the FSF, the rigor is even less present. So, what I didn't make clear in my excessively short initial reply was that I wasn't talking about RMS's lack of rigor; I was talking about the wider FSF circle. [1] The whole "GNU/Linux" thing is one of the points where I think that the lack of compromise and zealotry is not admirable and demonstrates the same sort of negative zealotry that would be associated with a radical religious sect. It's great that RMS sticks to his guns, but sometimes he goes in directions that harm his position far more than if he were to compromise a little.