I agree with Stallman too, and he's a great explainer of these issues. Stallman's default assumption that proprietary software is malware rings true to me, too

I agree with Stallman too, and he's a great explainer of these issues. Stallman's default assumption that proprietary software is malware rings true to me, too... if not now, it will be in the next update. Rhetorically, I think Stallman's ethical strength contributes to the integrity of the Free Software movement, but also tends to alienate people who do not already agree. As I see it, this is a common dilemma for good causes. For example, I think animal rights rhetoric tends to alienate people who don't already strongly agree that animals have rights. I'm influenced in my thinking by reading things like Alisdair MacIntyre's book "After Virtue", especially the second chapter, which begins: "The most striking feature of contemporary moral utterance is that so much of it is used to express disagreements; and the most striking feature of the debates in which these disagreements are expressed is their interminable character. I do not mean by this just that such debates go on and on -- although they do -- but also that they apparently can find no terminus. There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture." Another source informing my approach is Richard Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity". I see free software as way to actualize solidarity, and yet I'm skeptical about the possibility of convincing people that proprietary software is "wrong" or "evil".