The more interesting questions concern themselves with matters such as whether people who start to use something like Ubuntu should be made aware of the issues that brought about its development, and whether such projects should pander to the priorities of the indifferent masses.
However, it is very likely that the indifferent masses are only indifferent because they simply aren't aware of the issues in many situations. Once aware of the way their private data is treated or how their own property is considered an asset of their operating system vendor, it is also likely that many people do want to know more about things like software freedom, privacy, data preservation, and control over their own hardware.
If people don't want to know about ethical matters, there's nothing to stop them from using something like Ubuntu, but we shouldn't just assume that people don't or won't care about such things, nor should we be so intent on replicating the success of Apple or Microsoft that we end up becoming just like them. Those calling Stallman "childish" are probably amongst those who like thinking about "success" and "winning" (and blogging about it all the time), but if Ubuntu "wins" by being Microsoft by another name, the community and the public won't be among the winners.
(And claiming that Stallman tries to forbid people from doing things is all very well, but Microsoft more effectively forbids people from not being obliged to buy their products when buying a new computer. Maybe people making such claims should get their priorities straight.)