What is meant by 'non-free' is software that is not open-source and licensed in such a way that it must legally remain so.
It's fairly simple to follow from there, isn't it? If the software you use falls under such definition, then you are (unless handy with advanced debuggers) mostly blind to what it is doing. To claim as much is the very opposite of "closed-mindedness".
Now, according to the credit at least, Stallman didn't write this article (though you are obviously correct in suggesting that his ethos drives the point). But can we really in this PRISM era point to Stallman, whose historical warnings were obviously prescient beyond the basic measure of sense held by the dominant digerati, and dismiss him as 'preachy'?
It's fairly simple to follow from there, isn't it? If the software you use falls under such definition, then you are (unless handy with advanced debuggers) mostly blind to what it is doing. To claim as much is the very opposite of "closed-mindedness".
Now, according to the credit at least, Stallman didn't write this article (though you are obviously correct in suggesting that his ethos drives the point). But can we really in this PRISM era point to Stallman, whose historical warnings were obviously prescient beyond the basic measure of sense held by the dominant digerati, and dismiss him as 'preachy'?