[new]
I find StallmanVsFiddes really strange. The story, as I understand it, is this: as the representative of the copyright holder for GCC and Binutils, Stallman sent a letter to this Fiddes guy telling him how to comply with the software's license. The letter he sent seems perfectly reasonable, and although it mentions "lawyers" the only reason it does so is to disdain using LegalThreats to settle problems.
In response, Fiddes acted like a big jerk for being asked to comply with the license, and "quit" FreeSoftware. In fact, the terms of his compliance seem to be minimal, and the request was polite and friendly. He didn't try to explain why just distributing patches should be OK, and he didn't try to change the GPL to make it OK. He just took his toys and went home.
But somehow, Stallman is supposed to be the bad guy in all this. Why?
It's hard not to read the entire thing as a needless hit piece on Stallman. God knows the man is stubborn and unwavering -- that's why we have a FreeSoftware movement today. Despite the legend of Stallman, I've always found him to be quite personable.
It also seems to miss the point of why Stallman would write Fiddes a letter in the first place. It's not that Stallman meddles in every GPL project out there; it's that, as the representative of the FSF, he's got a job of making sure that people comply with the license of the FSF's software. He wasn't writing as a CopyLeft advocate, but as the representative of a compiler owner.
I guess that the FSF could have let the non-compliance just go by in this case, but it seems like a bad idea. It's important to Wiki:FixBrokenWindows.