Regardless of the origin of the words or their perceived context, it's widely considered unacceptable to publicly post the content of private emails and subsequently attribute authorship. It's not the doing thing.
Stallman's in favor of software users having the right to modify their software and redistribute it. He's not some kind of "information wants to be free" cyberpunk, and doesn't have similar opinions in general. For example, he thinks it's perfectly fine for books to be copyrighted.
IMO that's exactly being hypocritical. Why book users should be prevented from modifying and redistributing them if software users are allowed this right? That simply makes no sense.
His argument, which seems pretty reasonable to me, is that software is a tool, whereas books are expression, and sees a stronger argument for it being important that people be able to modify their own tools (he does include some kinds of "tool-like" books, like instruction manuals, in that category).
I don't think it's useful to charge people with "hypocrisy" as an attempt to preemptively shut down debate about whether different classes of works ought to be treated differently, in any case.
AFAIK, based on the last talk by RMS I attended he condoned copyright on works of fiction only, not on works of fact. So no copyright on manuals, textbooks, scientific articles, etc.
