Stallman in fact is quite a centrist and a pragmatist. The problem is that the software freedom landscape is so incredibly shifted towards the non-free end of the spectrum that he appears to be a radical. We can easily conceive of a radical splinter group of the FSF, the SLF (software liberation front), advocating:<p>1. Only the use of the AGPL license. No other license is considered free, because all other licenses can be used in some way to limit the freedom of users. As soon as a license more free than the AGPL comes along, only that will be the free license. (In contrast, the FSF promotes the Apache license, the LGPL, and similar, when it is strategic to the free software agenda.)<p>2. Never interoperate with non-free software. To do so is to condone actions that may prolong someone&#x27;s lack of freedom. The fact this may be necessary for their work or personal life is irrelevant. (In contrast, most GNU software runs on Windows, which Stallman probably sees as no different from it running on the proprietary Unices he wrote it on.)<p>3. Do not allow the execution of non-free code, if your free program executes code. (In contrast, gNewSense or IceCat will execute any x86 or javascript you throw at them, even if it doesn&#x27;t have licensing metadata that identifies it as free.)<p>The FSF and Stallman are in fact quite tolerant in an absolute sense compared to our hypothetical SLF. This doesn&#x27;t even go into the other strategies or tactics such an extreme group could engage in, such as firebombing the Microsoft offices or forcibly liberating source code. Instead, the FSF restricts itself to very tame boycott politics.<p>You in particular have a gross misunderstanding of Stallman&#x27;s strategies and tactics, even if you might understand his goals. Stallman is a moderate. He thinks pragmatically, even if he&#x27;s sometimes wrong (protesting DRM at apple stores is probably a waste, as is protesting furriers, but sometimes you can&#x27;t help but want to speak out).