Unwavering philosophy, in the face of shifts in opinion: good, provided the philosophy was something we approve of in the first place.
Unwavering opinions, in the face of shifts in the situation: bad.
Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish the two.
There's a separate, important question of how much to prioritize strategy versus tactics. Probably, we need some people to keep an eye on each, but unfortunately infighting can get bitter.
If Stallman took a compromised path then his organization would fill with people who agreed with this compromised path. They would mouth Stallman's Free Software position knowing in action the agenda is different. People would claim to support Stallman but would have the agenda of keeping software patents but maybe controlling unhealthy patent trolls. Then Stallman would have to have purges to get rid of these people who have this alternate agenda.
The SaaS "loophole" which I assume you are referring to (i.e. accessing software through Web APIs) was covered by the Affero GPL (AGPL) but not the plain vanilla GPLv3. Personally, I consider the fact that the GPLv3 didn't try to forestall this type of usage without invoking copyleft provisions a positive. But I realize not everyone agrees.
Your comment doesn't seem grounded in reality. The situation has changed tremendously since rms started the GNU project. I own my own computer, and so does (literally?) every single person I know. The internet makes sharing with these people (and with people they know, and with strangers) trivial. At the outset, rms made money selling copies of GPL software for $150 each! The situation has changed!
Now, whether it has changed in a way that makes the positions held by rms less relevant or appropriate is quite another question. It sounds to me like you read my comment as some kind of attack on rms: it was not intended to be anything of the kind; I very much value the man's input to our collective discourse, and tend to agree with him more than not.
>whether it has changed in a way that makes the positions held by rms less relevant or appropriate is quite another question
It's the only relevant question in this thread. I'm sure that there's been some global temperature change since the GPL was come up with, but I'd like to hear a case about why it matters.
So, let's address it explicitly: predominately, I would say that these changes have made his positions more relevant, but I am not confident that I'm not missing things. A lot has changed in highly pertinent areas.
Unwavering opinions, in the face of shifts in the situation: bad.
Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish the two.
There's a separate, important question of how much to prioritize strategy versus tactics. Probably, we need some people to keep an eye on each, but unfortunately infighting can get bitter.