RMS is a politician, dude; calm down. Let&#x27;s look at the preceding sentences:<p>&gt; The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours
because they do not share our values and goals.  They object to the
measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the
inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don&#x27;t care about) the
need for them.  I would guess they describe their work as &quot;open
source&quot; and do not talk about freedom.<p>That&#x27;s much more nuanced than &quot;anything that isn&#x27;t GNU isn&#x27;t free&quot;. He thinks that their license is a <i>lot</i> different, because he has a particular definition of &quot;free&quot; that he&#x27;s championed for decades. Putting &quot;and this is what I mean by &#x27;free&#x27;&quot; into every statement would be more PR-friendly, but redundant for... anyone who&#x27;s heard RMS speak or breathe for 30 years.<p>If anything, this is a reasonable statement from a politician: &quot;The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals.&quot; Maybe save the &quot;what an asshole&quot; comment for if he ever says, &quot;LLVM hates freedom, GNU rules, BSD drools.&quot;