It seems pretty obvious when you consider that outer space is mostly just a gigantic void without substance.
I think you're confusing two different ideas of "void". You're talking about outer space in general being mostly space but the article is talking about a contrast in the density of matter distributed in different areas of the universe, using the word "void" to refer to an area of low density.
Firstly, GNU/Linux systems aren't just "lgpl" systems. Secondly, out of curiosity what were you considering "tools" to be?
Are you being sarcastic?
Wow, that's almost interesting!
for tools
For GNU/Linux tools?
Spectrum +2A
I don't think your interpretation of DeVault is fair here to be honest.
It's not an interpretation. DeVault used a different word in place of the word that Stallman used, with a different and broader meaning. Regardless of your understanding of how DeVault's word is used, the defined meaning of the word implies that Stallman supports pedophilia. DeVault's use of the word is an outrageous slander which has the potential to be disasterous for Stallman. Indeed that seems to have been DeVault's intent.
I don't think DeVault's interpretation of Stallman is fair. Indeed, I think it was malicious and deceitful. I think your interpretation of DeVault is naive and fails to take into account just how serious the consequences of accusing someone of supporting pedophilia can get.
Possible but not easily.
I cannot rip DVDs
In the US, this is legal:
"This means that you can legally rip a DVD for personal use, as long as you don't violate any of the other copyright laws. What does this mean in practice? You can rip a DVD for your own personal use, but you can't distribute the ripped file to others. You also can't make a copy of the ripped file for someone else."
https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/is-it-legal-to-rip-dvd.html
Unless something is wrong here with my interpretation, DeVault asserting that Stallman thinks being attracted to minors is normal is a totally reasonable thing to say.
Something is wrong with your interpretation. I hoped the examples I gave of non sequiturs would convey to you the nature of the logical mistake you're making. I'm stunned that you don't get this. Perhaps the failure is mine. Perhaps you're trolling. Assuming the former, let me state it very basically and clearly:
If someone says that adolescents are minors and that adult attraction to adolescents is normal, they are not saying that adult attraction to minors is normal.
I'll expand a bit, perhaps this will help:
If someone says that adolescents are minors and that adult attraction to adolescents is normal, they are not saying that adult attraction to all minors is normal, they are saying only that adult attraction to the specific group of minors they have identified is normal.
To put it another way:
If a person claims 'Stallman says that attraction to some minors is normal' then they are right.
If a person claims 'Stallman says that attraction to minors is normal' then they are wrong.
I've read some of Stephen Hawking's works and it seems clear to me that you're muddled in your thinking.