Indeed, it's worthwhile to study rms and his cause in more details. For instance, the "he wrote an Emacs" part is actually more complex. But also the reason why

Indeed, it's worthwhile to study rms and his cause in more details. For instance, the "he wrote an Emacs" part is actually more complex. But also the reason why you put Open Source in quotes is part of rms' story, and as newer generations of hackers come onto the scene, this part of history faces a risk of becoming forgotten. As a matter of fact, coming to think of it, the IT world is so fast paced that I'm worried there aren't currently any appropriate measures in place to record historical developments, because in IT, "history" is something that happens over a few years, rather than a few decades or centuries. Stallman is a hacker, but his interest and cause is not so much on a technical than a societal level. The free software movement, it seems to me, has experienced a considerable reduction in public interest, and likely this has to do with the controversies that arose around rms. But there's also something to be learned about why the term "Open Source" is ubiquitous while "Free Software" is not. It is not only because of the unfortunate ambiguity of the latter, but also because of the implications of the underlying philosophies for corporate IT.