RMS was not invited to speak at the LinuxWorld Summit in Revolution OS. He spoke briefly when receiving the Linus Torvalds award, but that's about it.
This is discussed in his book: Free as in Freedom. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin -------- Original Message -------- From: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Jul 13, 2012 06:56 AM To: [email protected] CC: Subject: [Trisquel-users] Re : Stallman on the Linux Action Show >I'm not going to repeat what I said in heavy detail either (and I am tired of >providing links you ignore), but: > >Richard Stallman is *not* "using the FSF as a way to pay his flights". His >flights are paid by who is inviting him to give a talk. And rms uses these >talks to raise quite a lot of money for the FSF (auction, sell of goodies, >etc.). >"Richard Stallman would never speak at Google I/O" because he would never be >invited in the first place. If he would, I strongly believe that he would go >and speak... about the privacy problems Google+ raise, the even greater >problem of SaaS (Google Docs being the best example), etc. When you are >subversive, you are not invited anywhere. I assume you would prefer Stallman >not to be subversive. I certainly would not. The large companies already are >far too powerful (politically) and people need to take the power back. It >will never happen if you only consider talks "authorized by" Google and other >mega-corporations. >Richard Stallman has spoken numerous times to very large audiences (for >instance, the LinuxWorld Summit as displayed in the movie "RevolutionOS"). >Besides, I really do not like the tone of your sentence "small groups, at a >university, or some small country" (maybe because I am an academics in a >country that is not the USA, hence probably "small" in your way of thinking). >Richard Stallman does not "hate capitalism", the economic theory (but I >assume you make a confusion between "Republicans" and "Capitalism"). >Richard Stallman should be "taken seriously". Do you remember who wrote, in >1983, that he would start alone a complete operating system (not only >"programming tools") that would be free? It is not only a technical >performance but a political one too. >Today, the free software movement counts tens (hundreds?) of thousands of >developers. Thousands for the GNU project alone. The movement lacks people >like rms brilliantly explaining (you write "rambling" but it looks useful >since you keep on pretending he says things he does not) the ethical >motivations that started it all. The Free Software movement is not technical >but, yes, ethical, social and political. >
