I disagree with what you're saying, but the Free Software Foundation is so irrelevant to my day-to-day life that it's not worth arguing with. I think a lot of the flack Stallman gets is that the lifestyle he advocates is repellant to people. I don't think that it has to do with him being inconsistent.
To clarify what I was intending to say, but didn't make as clear as I should have (I was posting from the iPhone).
1. RMS is incredibly consistent in what he says. He is a zealot in the best sense of the word. When he talks about software freedom, he always means the four freedoms, and he does his absolute hardest to never compromise his principles. This is (mostly) admirable[1], if infuriating because pragmatism would often get his arguments further IMO. However,
2. RMS is not the FSF, and not everyone who works with or for the FSF is as rigorous with their use of software freedom in discussions. When you step even further outside of the circle to those who support the FSF, the rigor is even less present.
So, what I didn't make clear in my excessively short initial reply was that I wasn't talking about RMS's lack of rigor; I was talking about the wider FSF circle.
[1] The whole "GNU/Linux" thing is one of the points where I think that the lack of compromise and zealotry is not admirable and demonstrates the same sort of negative zealotry that would be associated with a radical religious sect. It's great that RMS sticks to his guns, but sometimes he goes in directions that harm his position far more than if he were to compromise a little.
"irrelevant to [your] day to day life"? Given the market share of Apache on GNU/Linux, I highly doubt it. I think the FSF has great (though indirect) influence even on you.
I think you are right about people being repelled by the lifestyle Stallman advocates. It's a pity.
Neither the Apache project nor Linux came to be because of the GPL. Had there been no GPL, they'd simply have used a different open license. But that's besides the point: what I'm saying is, I'm not particularly invested in the "four freedoms" perspective on software freedom.
Besides the point: Don't forget the "GNU" in GNU/Linux. It came first. It is bigger. It made Linux (the kernel) possible, by doing the rest of the work. So, if you use Linux, remember that it comes with GNU.
You're obviously right about Apache (but then, why did you bring it up?).
But I disagree strongly about the "GNU/Linux" thing. Linux would have happened either way. I installed 386bsd off approximately seventeen thousand floppy disks when I was young, and I don't recall that being a GPL'd userland.
Almost all the work during the Unix Wars was wasted, entombed in proprietary forks. It's no coincidence that they were all quickly surpassed by the first kernel whose license makes it mostly immune to that problem. Without the GPL, Linux would have happened just as slowly as the BSDs, and getting where we are would have taken many years (decades?) longer--and what's most appalling, most users would not be allowed to understand or improve their tools.
