Richard Stallman's not-so-finest hour

I cringed when I read Richard Stallman's comments against the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's fine for him to write for the BBC that:

Gates may be gone, but the walls and bars of proprietary software he helped create remain, for now. Dismantling them is up to us.

Three cheers for freedom!

However, it's not so fine to then start picking apart the intentions behind Gates' philanthropy:

Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries.

He may be right. He's probably wrong. Regardless, it just demonstrates poor judgment and bad taste to try to kick Gates on his way out, especially for the charitable work that Gates and his wife do.

[theopensourcerer]

All he did was quote the LA Times report, rather than trying to defend Gates, why don't you investigate the LA Times report first and see if there is any truth in that?

Jeez - talk about blog posting for hit count.

[royrusso]

Stallman is irrelevant. His time has come and gone, and he does more harm than good to the OSS movement.

Face it, he's a kook. He's more than willing to embrace barbarians like Fidel Castro than to pat Gates on the back for his philanthropy... that says it all.

[mcasters]

I've always have known Richard Stallman to be very polite and consequential in everything that he does and writes. He has always made it clear that the purpose of all his actions have more to do with sociological and ideological ideals than with software per-se. As such, I don't see why you felt like you had to attack him for questioning the enormous power of the B&M Gates foundation.

Are you perhaps saying we should have blind faith in the foundation? Why may I ask should they be given a right that no other individual or organization on the planet has?

I honestly don't think that Richard Stallman is irrelevant at all. His consequential view that software should be free are indeed making a big difference, whether you like it or not.
His politeness and his refusal to take part in flame wars do make him a dream target for bloggers and website all around that are in need of an audience. To me it's clear that in most cases, it makes him the better man.

[BrucePerens]

Matt,

Richard brings up a significant problem in our society. Michael Milken, the "Junk Bond King", squandered the pension funds of a great many people in some cases erasing their life savings, while also making himself one of the richest people alive. He was allowed to keep the money and got away with serving a 6-month jail term. He is today one of the most significant philanthrophists. Shall we give him glory for his contribution to charity, or deplore him for the way in which he made the money?

Gates is not as black and white an example as Milken, but people like Richard have good reason to criticize the harm he has done in the name of enriching himself. The dirty fighting that Microsoft became known for during his tenure goes on. His retirement from Microsoft doesn't mean he's leaving the position of wealth and influence, even on Microsoft corporation. It's not really a question of whether he should be criticized now, but one of whether he should always be criticized. I think that as a society we have been too easy on him.

Bruce Perens

[The_Decider]

Gates should be ridiculed. His "philanthropy" is nothing more than a PR and sales vehicle. You can't spend 30 years being a scumbag thief that has cost the world billions of dollars in lost productivity, security issues, lost innovation and think that giving some money away will fix that. He can give 98% of his ill gotten wealth away and he is still a slimeball billionaire. Gates is scum, end of story.

[nzlemming]

You accuse too soon. If I was cringing at anything, I'd be cringing at the obvious astroturf article you link to. Stallman made no accusation, he merely noted that the LATimes had made a statement. As mcasters says above, we shouldn't have blind faith in anyone.

[tuxperson]

It's poor judgment and bad taste to criticize the messenger- a real journalist would dig into how the Gates Foundation spends its money and hold it to account, just like any other charity. This is straight out of the robber baron's handbook- spend the first part of your life being a ruthless predator, gaining obscene wealth by any means you are capable of, no matter who or what you destroy on the way. Then retire, take lessons in appearing benevolent and grandfatherly, and give away some of your fortune. There have been many reports that the Gates Foundation is little more than an arm of Microsoft's marketing department. You would be wise to investigate such claims, instead of criticizing Mr. Stallman, who never in his life even dreamed of committing any of the legions of dirty deeds that Bill Gates has done.