Not his philosophy; that is abundantly clear.

I too am completely at a loss for what his actual agenda is.

I never know what that means. People seem to only use it about people they don't like. Seems like Russell conjugation - I have a vision, you have plans, they have an agenda.

What's your (actual) agenda?

p.s. Thinking more about it, it doesn't seem a question that ever has an answer. Seems like it means something like "I don't like that person, what they believe, what they say or what they do. They're so different from me I can't believe they're for real. So I'm going to insinuate they're guided by some concealed nefarious scheme. I heard a right-wing person use the phrase and I thought it was a pretty cool and effective debate tactic. Makes me sound like I've easily seen through their amateurish attempt at deception." Please correct me if I'm wrong, and it's actually a genuine question.

Potential answers to "What is rms's agenda?":

* spread his free software ethics philosophy to as wide an audience as possible

* persuade nonfree software developers to produce free software instead

* persuade software users to abandon use of nonfree software

* persuade software users to use free software instead of nonfree software

Think of it as a to-do list. What does rms want to happen as a result of his speaking? Education? Persuasion? Improved conditions for working software developers? Improved conditions for software end-users? What is he trying to accomplish?

The majority of the things he says seem like compulsive statements based out of his (obviously steadfast and unwavering) belief that nonfree software is unethical. The fact is, though, that inanimate things cannot be unethical. Ethics is a matter of human behavior.

So, does he want some or all of the following:

* employees of companies that make nonfree software to quit?

* owners/managers of companies that make nonfree software to dissolve their organizations?

* owners/managers of companies that make nonfree software to make only free software instead?

* owners/managers of companies that make nonfree software to set policies banning the use of nonfree software in their organizations?

* people not in software to get into software to make more free software to make the world more ethical?

* legislatures to ban companies like Google who exist only on the basis of extensive use of nonfree software?

It's not really clear what he's asking, and of whom. Who's the audience, and what does he want them to do, or cease doing? Why does he want them to do (or stop doing) that? Why should they? If the answer to the last is "because of rms's ethics", then why should they adopt his ethical framework over their current one (where there's nothing wrong with producing, selling, or using nonfree software)?

There are so many unanswered questions with rms.