Oh, I know that, but on the other hand, can he deny that his free software movement inspired the "modern open source movement", however much he dislikes, with some justice, the two being lumped together?
ADDED: To my knowledge, there are two areas where he's really, truly, significantly innovated: EMACS and GNU/FSF. The EMACS innovations are just not the stuff of serious history, however much we appreciate them while we're using it. GNU/FSF, that's big, and while (more than) minimal technical merit was required for it make a difference, the innovation was not technical per se (well, unless you look at the legal side, i.e. the GPL). Again, I'm trying to see how "history" will view him.
I myself use FOSS when I'm talking to an audience that knows it, but many if not most general historians are unlikely to make such fine distinctions, unless we get some really major object lesson in why his version of free software is really what we should be doing.
E.g. imagine a major spying on citizens, or more likely subjects, scandal from opening microphones by closed (enough) software. I know some land line phone system designers have deliberately made that impossible.
(I do, BTW, empathize with his cellphone attitude, I own one candybar "3rd world" cellphone that's almost always turned off unless I'm rendezvousing/coordinating with someone and/or it's an emergency. Mostly because of lifestyle and penny pinching, but I never forget that whenever I turn it on I'm saying "here I am!" to the towers it connects to, and on or officially off, it's almost never in a place where eavesdropping would be useful. And, hmmm, yep, when I'm out it's almost always with my father, and I take advantage of his always carrying and primarily using a cellphone.
Hmmm, come to think of it, there are a number of reasons we got along with each other, despite me being an unhidden arch-conservative type and he a rather liberal type, e.g. neither of us are very trusting of the powers that be.)
ADDED: To my knowledge, there are two areas where he's really, truly, significantly innovated: EMACS and GNU/FSF. The EMACS innovations are just not the stuff of serious history, however much we appreciate them while we're using it. GNU/FSF, that's big, and while (more than) minimal technical merit was required for it make a difference, the innovation was not technical per se (well, unless you look at the legal side, i.e. the GPL). Again, I'm trying to see how "history" will view him.
I myself use FOSS when I'm talking to an audience that knows it, but many if not most general historians are unlikely to make such fine distinctions, unless we get some really major object lesson in why his version of free software is really what we should be doing.
E.g. imagine a major spying on citizens, or more likely subjects, scandal from opening microphones by closed (enough) software. I know some land line phone system designers have deliberately made that impossible.
(I do, BTW, empathize with his cellphone attitude, I own one candybar "3rd world" cellphone that's almost always turned off unless I'm rendezvousing/coordinating with someone and/or it's an emergency. Mostly because of lifestyle and penny pinching, but I never forget that whenever I turn it on I'm saying "here I am!" to the towers it connects to, and on or officially off, it's almost never in a place where eavesdropping would be useful. And, hmmm, yep, when I'm out it's almost always with my father, and I take advantage of his always carrying and primarily using a cellphone.
Hmmm, come to think of it, there are a number of reasons we got along with each other, despite me being an unhidden arch-conservative type and he a rather liberal type, e.g. neither of us are very trusting of the powers that be.)