While most of the commenters here discuss what Stallman said and what he actualy meant, whether it was distasteful or not, and whether Jobs was a modern day messiah who single-handedly changed the world we live in or just a smart business man with a very good sense of choosing the right people to create the products that he envisioned, I'd like to take a minute to think about what is actually proposed in this article - the forking of FSF. It's quite obvious from the article that the reason the author suggests something like that is not because his views on software freedom somehow differ than those of Stallman, but because he has issues with Stallman himself, or more precisely, with his publicly expressed opinions. He feels that they hurt FSF and free software in general. Isn't then the solution to the problem to, through some electoral process, replace Stallman and put a new figure at the head of FSF? Somebody more tactful, more careful about how they say what they mean (if that's truly the kind of a person memebers of FSF would like to see in charge)? Starting a new foundation with exactly the same goals as FSF, just because you don't like Stallman's public statements, seems pointless to me.