Self-labeled pragmatists aren't really pragmatic

Granted, but my point is there's a spectrum.  People who describe themselves as idealists can
be pragmatic, and people who describe themselves as pragmatists can be idealistic.  Saying
that self-described pragmatists are, to a person, interested in expedience at the expense of
principle or short-term benefit at the expense of long-term good is unfair and untrue.

Actually, in this regard, I believe (and no, I'm not pretending to speak 
for him, I'd definitely welcome his correction if I'm incorrect in this 
belief) Stallman would call himself just that, pragmatic.

From that material I've read, he has in fact actually pointed out from 
time to time that at one point he /did/ in fact use a non-free OS, but 
that he now sees no need to do so, and therefore does not do so, as all 
the necessary parts are there to run a free one, even if it entails a bit 
of taking the longer view over immediate comfort or gain, in some areas.

That's probably why the OS libraries exception is there, after all.  It 
reflects a pragmatic viewpoint in that it was and in some cases remains 
difficult to implement free(dom) software without such dependencies.  
Similarly with the pragmatism (tho toward an ultimate goal, no argument) 
evidenced in the LGPL, and also the GCC license exceptions.

He just makes it a point to never lose sight of the ultimate goal, 
software freedom everywhere, and to promote that as effectively as he 
believes he possibly can at every turn, regardless of whether that 
means "unbending idealism" or "pragmatism" in an individual case.

I certainly respect him for that, tho I too, don't agree with him in all 
cases (like the GNU/Linux thing).

It's worth noting, however, that I agree with him enough to have chosen 
as my sig in many contexts a quote of his (as noted elsewhere in the 
replies), to the effect that every non-free program has a master, and if 
you use the program, you are letting him be /your/ master as well.

Duncan