Stallman's views on natality have absolutely nothing to do with the Free
Software Foundation, which exclusively deals with software.
About his life (but, again, who cares?): he is atheist (anyway, he can have
interesting opinions about religions), he is not attracted to children
(anyway, he can have interesting opinions about pedophilia) and he does not
smoke weed (anyway, he can have interesting opinions about drugs). I do not
know whether he was abused as a child but I have never heard of that
(reference needed).
Stallman does not "puts software above humans". Quite the opposite: he puts
the humans' freedoms above anything else and in all relevant areas of life.
Nowadays, computing is parts of almost everybody's life and takes more and
more importance.
Then I do not see why accepting donations from an entity would mean
supporting this entity. On the contrary, I clearly understand that these
donations advance the free software cause. Where is the hypocrisy?
As I already wrote to you, rms does not earn a dime from the FSF. Same thing
for the money he raised at the end of his talks. He makes a living from those
inviting him to give talks.
As for his ecological print, I am quite sure he is not happy about it.
Nevertheless, his ecological print, which is unavoidable to give talks all
over the world, should be compared to the contribution he brings to society
by promoting free software in this way. I consider the output positive.
