The perception of "cramming" is Linus's problem. The concrete complaint he makes (before his blanket statement that ethics should never be discussed publicly) is that people "push" the GPL as being "about 'ethics.'" Well, that is nothing about Linus, it is about the GPL, so he can't even claim it's personal. Plus, it's a reasonable opinion to have, especially since the person wrote the GPL did so to promote certain ethical considerations. It is Linus's fault that he is so sensitive that he can't abide somebody having an opinion that the GPL has an ethical side to it.
Then he goes on to say, "I really want to point out that it's not that the license is somehow ethical per se." So it's okay for him to have and express an opinion on that question. The hypocrisy is really thick there.
And here's the question that prompted that response: "Do you agree that there is an ethical content in the GPL?" Hardly a pushy question, and the interviewer practically apologizes before he asks the question. So no, there is no cramming, there is just a person who is extremely sensitive on an issue and responds to a polite question with an insulting rant about civility. There is nothing cool about that. He isn't dropping his brilliant technical judgment on an unsuspecting noob who will be better for it in the long run. It's just unpleasant behavior to no useful end.
There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion (with regards to the GPL even!) and I'm sure that if you honestly look at yourself, you'll find you are too.
All this said, he's literally just saying that people who cram the GPL onto other people because it's more "ethical" are dickheads. As far as I can tell, he's not doing that himself, and he's not attempting to imply that the questioner was doing it either. Rather, he just isn't kidding himself, and recognizes that the reason the question is being asked is because there are certain "high profile" people who have made it a full time hobby to do such cramming. He wishes to make it clear that his reasons for using the GPL are purely pragmatic, not quasi-religious.
To be honest, at this point it really just seems like you are attempting to be contrarian.
Not, not really, I just accept that there are people out there expressing opinions about how I should live and that there's no way for me to shut them up. "How many times do I have to express my opinion before those dickheads stop expressing theirs?" is a natural feeling when a controversy drags on longer than one feels it should, but it is counterproductive to express that feeling as if it were an argument. (Also, personally, I don't think the free software ethic is something that ought to go away, even if I don't follow it myself.)
There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems.
Most controversies include some number of unpleasant people. If we let that affect how we respond to polite questions from polite people, we become part of the problem. If you said something to me about the U.S. occupation in Iraq, would it be constructive for me to respond by complaining about the conduct of various people who have expressed similar opinions?
Then he goes on to say, "I really want to point out that it's not that the license is somehow ethical per se." So it's okay for him to have and express an opinion on that question. The hypocrisy is really thick there.
And here's the question that prompted that response: "Do you agree that there is an ethical content in the GPL?" Hardly a pushy question, and the interviewer practically apologizes before he asks the question. So no, there is no cramming, there is just a person who is extremely sensitive on an issue and responds to a polite question with an insulting rant about civility. There is nothing cool about that. He isn't dropping his brilliant technical judgment on an unsuspecting noob who will be better for it in the long run. It's just unpleasant behavior to no useful end.