You're referring to this all in the wrong tense. Corporations don't need to replace Richard Stallman because they already got Eric Raymond to replace his entire

You're referring to this all in the wrong tense. Corporations don't need to replace Richard Stallman because they already got Eric Raymond to replace his entire movement with the "apolitical" version: the Open Source Initiative. This happened decades ago. RMS warned us about it, we didn't care. The dystopia in Right to Read also happened decades ago: it was called the Nintendo Entertainment System. Less toy-like examples would be embedded systems and cellphones, which have always been locked-down[0] since day one (waaaaay before the iPhone popularized this business model). The FSF isn't positioned to stop this. Microsoft pushed for locked-down PCs back in 2012, with Windows RT[1]. It failed not because Defective by Design made a good protest campaign and got Congress to stop it, but because Microsoft made several key strategic blunders that made their attack on freedom irrelevant. If Intel fails in pushing Linux or BSD off of people's laptops, it will not be because the FSF stopped it, either. The problem with RMS is that his area of expertise is several decades old and his activism has taken time away from him maintaining that expertise. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if the FSF was purely an activism project; but it also maintains an operating system and several other core utilities. The people actually fighting on the front lines of software freedom these days (e.g. Hector Martin) consider the FSF to be functionally impotent. The diversity concerns raised in the posted article are downstream of this: the FSF is still used to telling a very specific brand of techie why they should care about software freedom, they don't know how to make a convincing argument to the general public. Now, let's contrast that to right-to-repair. This is a concern downstream of software freedom: you can't meaningfully restrict repair practices if you can modify the software on the device. So it might seem like a side-show we should just ignore. However, it's seen a lot more attention than software freedom. We've gotten right-to-repair legislation in Massachusetts and Colorado. And this is a function of two things: - This being a more concrete and understandable concern. Nobody cares about being able to modify the software on their Tesla - until they need to break the software locks on their Tesla that keep them from swapping parts. - Activism from people (e.g. Louis Rossman) who are willing to touch scummy social media platforms. The last one is important. Social media is how a lot of political activism happens, for better and for worse. But as far as I'm aware the FSF does not have a presence here. Nobody at the FSF is making, say, punchy YouTube video essays or Twitbooktodon posts explaining the through-line between not having source code and corporations doing bad things to you. And as far as I'm aware their lobbying arm is nonexistent. [0] Or, at least, not intended to be user programmable in ways that make locking them down palatable to consumers. [1] The ARM port of Windows 8