I think a more nuanced view is in order. As with many things, this is an example where agreement or personal likability is probably not a Boolean thing for most

I think a more nuanced view is in order. As with many things, this is an example where agreement or personal likability is probably not a Boolean thing for most people. Personally, I don't care what he looks like and I hate it when disparaging anecdotes are being passed around. It doesn't matter that he's a stereotypical "weird kid" as Dave Winer describes him. We're all hackers here and before the days of the Brogrammer, most of us were (and still are) weird kids. What does matter is the message Stallman conveys in his talks. It's an important one, and he brings it across very eloquently. He himself is, however, an extremist and people do well to always keep this in mind. He is still influential because he is an extremist with a lot of legitimate grievances. When he is giving talks he sounds reasonable, because the fundamentals of his ideas are reasonable. That doesn't mean he is a reasonable person. In many interactions he does in fact appear to be the bully, not the victim. In the end, RMS is so fanatical about his vision of Free Software that he as a person becomes remarkably non-free. That's a tremendous price to pay and I respect that. So there is no need to come down for or against RMS. He is what he is - he does his thing irregardless of the world around him. I believe it's not always productive to try and pass a final judgement on people or ideas, to try and weigh the good vs the bad and arrive at a net value. It is not necessary to stand up for or against Stallman. Sometimes, it's OK to let the pros and cons stand for themselves and acknowledge them as such without giving in to the urge to make a weighted sum of the whole thing.