For those not familiar with Mr. Stallman, the man responsible for the questionable Linux license (or contract, there seems to be some legal confusion that has yet to sort itself out in a courtroom), as well as controlling authority for many applications packaged with the various versions of Linux, you can learn more about him by visiting his daily news section on his own personal website:
http://www.stallman.org/archives/2004-mar-jun.html
I'd suggest reading it before drawing your own conclusions as to the value of his statements.
Questionable Linux license. You mean the one that allows you to modify Linux to meet your needs. You mean the one that allows you full access to linux source for your coding purposes if you don't want to build all your own libraries.
That license. I hope people do read it. Because it gives MS perpetual screamin runs. MS doesn't get to control who has access to the api functionality to make semi-stable apps. In linux everyone has access to make STABLE applications.
Stallman is an ok guy in general. Just has different views about software. And that's ok.
No question except for you and Darl. It is a license, better fitting the definition of a license than many other "licenses" out there. Court cases for violation of the GPL have all been brought as cases of copyright infringement, and not as breach of contract cases (the latter of which you'll often find in commercial software).
Stallman's statements on various airy subjects are always to be taken with a grain of salt. However, the area Stallman is commenting on is the definitions of the GPL, FSF, GNU and Linux. He is definitely a trusted source for the definitions and purposes of the first three and their relation to the last one. It is in this area that Stallman says Brown is deliberately trying to confuse.