3 ms·
> All while he lives comfortably off the income of his own celebrity. For most part of his life he was living in his office at the university, technically home
by belorn 5y ago
> All while he lives comfortably off the income of his own celebrity.
For most part of his life he was living in his office at the university, technically homeless. After that period he lived in a home designated by MIT, possible because they got tired of the building code violation of having a professor living in his office.
- lovich 5y agoI would classify being able to live at his office without being tossed out into the streets, and being given a home after that got to be too much for the school, as living off his celebrity. The "technically" in "technically homeless" is a major difference between what Stallman has to deal with vs what non famous computer scientists/software engineers have to deal with. I understand he's forgone the amount of wealth he could have accumulated by just working in the software industry in the name of his cause, and that is laudable. However he thinks everyone should do this despite the greater burden they'd have to shoulder. All the people he tells shouldn't be making non free software so they can support themselves and their families are not going to be given free lodging by MIT.
- belorn 5y agoBeing a celebrity does provide much more benefits than a person actually being homeless. However your comment above said he lived comfortably off the income of his own celebrity. We would have to twist the word income here for a bit to cover this kind of situation. The comfortably part is also a bit questionable, but I guess living at the office can be comfortable to some people. The description just didn't fit the situation that well, which is why I wrote the above comment.
- lovich 5y agoAlright, if you want to be that pedantic then find+replace “income” with benefits. The point still stands. He has the basics of his life taken care of and tells others they should go without in the name of his ethics system