Anyone debating ideas should be prepared to defend his statements, especially when he's misconstruing the purpose or point of the person he's debating with. If someone points out that you're taking Stallman's comments and cherrypicking them, to say that you don't find the purpose behind his comments 'interesting' is indicative of just how well you understand his statement in the first place, and how much credence we should give your quoting him. And comparing his statements to Marx's is applying silly guilt-by-association tactics. He may well be a Marxist. But simply saying that he prefers the idea of free software to proprietary software doesn't prove that, nor does saying he's just as uninteresting as Marx prove that, especially when there are capitalist, market-opening reasons to want proprietary software sales in their current form broken, and there are lots of people as boring as Marx that aren't Marxist at all. A Newt Gingrich speech is as boring as watching paint dry, but that doesn't make him a Commie.
Trying to use Newt Gingrich's name to defend Richard Stallman? LMAO, that's like saying giving your property away is the definition of capitalism! You guys sure are desperate to steal conservative terms and names to promote your "copy"leftist views.