Without saying I agree with him on this, here's his defense of it: https://stallman.org/articles/dr-stallman.html
As he should. He earned it
It's also illegal to do it without actually having the title.
Still, it is a fact that he has a doctorate. I don't think he's wrong to call himself a doctor. A little formal, perhaps?
This is false and insulting to people who earned real degrees.
He has an honorary doctorate. Which is about as worthless as if someone had the local trophy shoppe mint you a plaque that said "World's Greatest Hacker".
Honorary doctorates are created for this cases, when the recipient is --the-- expert in the field. Is a shortcut to encourage this experts to became teachers and pass their knowledge. Win-win. Do we really think that somebody spending four years writing a these about emacs knows more than Stallman about a program that he developped since 70's?
Is abused to groom donors? Yes, Sometimes is abused, but is a perfectly legit way to became a doctor.
No, but at least in the US, they're often given out for things other than achievement in a particular field, like as unofficial quid-pro-quo for large donations to the university.
Perhaps that doesn't damn the practice entirely, as many are awarded for extraordinary contributions, but it does add an unfortunate extra step, having to ask the question, "did this person get this honor because they did amazing things, or because they paid amazing sums?"
A honorary doctorate is to a doctorate as a honorary citizenship is to a citizenship. It does not imply any rights or qualifications and trying to pass it of as the real deal may be (and in some places is quite explicitly) considered fraud.
I suspect it's some sort of cultural thing, and that with how much computer people tend to reject typical forms of formality we're just mostly on the far opposite side of whatever cultural thing it is.
Let's not even talk about medical doctors everywhere, or formal engineering qualifications, both are very often used in letters.
The argument is that they make a direct difference to the perception of the individuals competence (and I know that for medical doctors there is a direct effect on earnings). While I don't think it would make a difference for RMS corresponding with software engineers he might be thinking it does make a difference because of his interaction with other stakeholders. Not really defending it, just offering a different perspective.
I think it does make a difference: many software developers might take him less seriously because of it. And that has nothing to do with the fact that his doctorates are honorary; same goes for someone who has completed a PhD program.
They also omit the "med", which is much like omitting "h.c.". And they are very keen on using the title in general.
Expat living in Germany here. You’re absolutely correct according to my experience. In fact, I’ve seen people with PhD put “Dr.” on the mailbox in front of their home.
Granted, these are mostly (or even all?) people who received their doctorates in the past 10 or 15 years, and as such are a good 30 years younger than Stallman, so perhaps there is a generational thing at play here too, where the respect/desirability of titles like that has been dropping over time.
Perhaps the PhD holders don't want to be associated with the hubris that most medical doctors exude. For reference, google "endometriosis suffer" or spend some time researching medical malpractice.
It also is possible that a lot of kids coming out of the 80s got a bum deal on their education - or at least feel they did. Like, "it was too easy to get this degree" - from the standpoint of applying themselves, not the overall workload of getting a PhD. Medical Doctors who are board certified, that did all their rotations, and whatever else required, there's only one other doctorate that requires more workload, and that's psychiatry.
What should maybe be questioned is why someone needs a doctorate for "the world to learn from them."
To give another data point: in France I remember the university having to ask the local profs. to put their titles (Dr, Prof, etc) in their mail signature as otherwise students thought that french teachers were much less competent than e.g. teachers from germany who would have three layers of Dr. Eng. prepended
A PhD has earned their title "Dr".
Many people use it, and they should. They paid for it with their mental health.
I apply the title to everyone I know with a PhD.
One common situation is introducing an invited speaker at a conference. After the first mention, you refer to the speaker using a mix of pronouns and names. Full name or last name would sound weird. Using first name works if the speaker is your friend and many people in the audience also know them as a person. Otherwise "Dr. Lastname" is a reasonable choice.
Academic websites are full of short biographies of speakers, lecturers, PIs, and so on. They are often written in third person. Again, "Dr. Lastname" is often the form of reference that sounds least weird.
Academic spam is often addressed to "Dr. Lastname", especially if the sender is asking the recipient to do something. Using "doctor" as a title is a safe default choice. It sounds respectful, it's very likely to be correct, and it saves the sender from guessing the gender (and possibly marital status) of the recipient.
But this is not relevant here, as Dr. Stahlmann doesn't work in Tübingen.
A doctorate is a doctorate. And if it makes him happier, why not? There's no harm or confusion (his qualifications are clear enough in any context where they matter). Unlike, say, the case of Dr. Phil.
There so many other things to have an issue with about Stallman, I don't know why this one stands out in particular.
...that said, the only time I've used the "Dr." next to my name was on obnoxious web forms which force me to choose between Mr/Ms/etc, and Dr. is the only non-gendered option.
Except Dr. Phil does have an actual PhD. Which he attended university and defended via dissertation. Unlike, say, RMS.
Well that's the point.
When RMS says he's a "Doctor", the expectation is "made a significant contribution to computer science" - which, arguably, he did.
When Dr. Phil says he's a "doctor", the expectation is "qualified and licensed to practice medicine in his field". Which he is very much not (in particular, he hasn't renewed his license).
Context matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_A8Xe9M0NY
Call me doctor (Call me doctor)
No need to look
He's not in the book
The doctor's not an M.D.
What he does this time he does for free
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VaMIFEQDg
>Mom, I am going to rip off your head and shit down your neck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeOBZWQEJE4
>For whatever intimidation and injustice vie with decency and honor, let the Doctors arise, and arise they must, for within every one of us, there is a Doctor, a dormant Doctor, a supreme arbitrator, who can be summoned to intervene, when crises threaten the stabilities and well-beings of our heartlands. Now let's party!