Regardless of Stallman's contributions, the whole point of "free software" is no longer relevant. Not even for software enthusiasts -- those who care just use open source.
This canard is completely irrelevant. Free software creates a free market for the maintenance, distribution, support, and modification of software. Users of free software might not make the modifications themselves, but they can hire anyone they want to do perform the modifications. (And, with a popular project, they often won't have to, because someone else has already done so. See, for example, git.)
My point was that the social movement for software freedom is not going anywhere. These are two different things.
According to Stallman, using GPL helps to achieve "software freedom". But many people use it as a tool for achieving their own (project, community, commercial, etc) goals and don't care about Stallman's social movement. See Linus Torvalds for example.
Lately Jaguar recalled 18000 cars because of a potentially lethal firmware bug. I'm pretty sure a common, generalized open-source automotive embedded platform would be a huge enhancement in all respects.
> Regardless of Stallman's contributions, the whole point of "free software" is no longer relevant.
On the contrary. At times when our governments are moving away from democracy and computer software are always more important tools of control and enforcement, Free Software is more critically relevant every day.
Today, Stallman's and FSF's real political and social influence is miniscule.
FSF had some impressive achievements in the 90s, but they failed to utilize the social capital efficiently and couldn't catch up with rapid ecosystem changes (e.g. software and computer programming becoming mainstream).
An example of this is tivoization clause in GPLv3 which is a nuisance for businesses and contributes to marginalization of the license.
I don't think it to be minuscule among programmers and hackers.
> An example of this is tivoization clause in GPLv3 which is a nuisance for businesses and contributes to marginalization of the license.
I don't see what makes the tivoization clause a nuisance for business. I think it's a misconception, like the idea that software patents are good for anybody but lawyers and trolls.