That is, there appears to have been no contingency plan; no build-up of enough people who both share the vision and have the respect and authority to take over in case of problems.
The civil rights movement didn't die when MLK was shot. John Lewis, one of the "Big Six" leaders of that movement, is an active member of Congress.
Or, look at Python. Van Rossum stepped down because of a mob (a different type of mob, but still a mob). Python development faltered, then recovered.
This either means that there is no effective Free Software movement, after 30 years, or it means that Stallman wasn't thinking about how the movement could carry on without him, or it means that Stallman prevented the buildup of a cadre of people who could take on the mantle, or possibly other scenarios.
Hence, if Free Software can be dismantled so easily, then it isn't really a movement.
> The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.
> The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
It's possible to choose the MIT license as part of the free software movement. However, more people choose the MIT license as part of the Open Source movement.
MIT license is suboptimal, in regards to the free software movement, as it does not include patents.