Disclaimer: I don&#x27;t agree with the proposition that non-free software is inherently unethical. This doesn&#x27;t change my admiration for Stallman nor does it lessen my respect for his position.<p>My speculation would be that the position is deemed ethical because Stallman&#x27;s view [as I understand it] has always been based on the primacy of freedom for the user. Stallman has not [so far as I am aware, though admittedly I do not approximate a one-eyed king on HN] ever suggested that users should be absolutely prohibited from installing and using non-free software. Only that it not be included under the &quot;Good Houskeeping Seal of Approval&quot;.<p>What Stallman has done here, as elsewhere, is a pair of tasks. One is to carefully define a set of terms and the second is to state his position with respect to those terms. Agree or disagree (and it&#x27;s more important in disagreement I suppose) one can reasonably know more or less exactly what one is agreeing or disagreeing with...e.g. this exactness is the reason that the issue of interoperability as a possible contradiction can be raised and clearly articulated.<p>Stallman speaks absolutely in the sense of clarity. He knows his position and his beliefs. My opinion is that they have perhaps done more to shape the current software ecosystem than anything else. We live in a world where a common moderate position for sober business women is an Apache type license not a 30 day trial binary, cripple ware, or even shareware...let alone something sold by a four-legged meat eating sales team. Great wealth has been built upon a shared commons, and programmers and developers have vastly benefitted in their economic lives.