Do you seriously think Stallman doesn't matter? The whole linux thing would not have happened without Stallman's GNU C Compiler.
Stallman and Torvalds are both greater coders that started an open source movement for different reasons. Stallman was refused to use Tanenbaum's compiler kit, which was the compiler for minix. So he made the GNU C Compiler. Torvalds knows damn' well why he adopted Stallman's GPL license and used the GNU C compiler for linux. Minix is not monolithic, and if it had been GPL, it would definitely have had more success than linux. Torvalds gambled on GPL because of the potential of the Internet, and he won. He knew that he wanted open source because of the quality of the coding and in order to use the internet as a leverage platform, and that is is main contribution, because later he made git, which expands on the whole idea of that.
Stallman used to work with unix machines since Harvard, more than 20 years before linux was created, it's not like Torvalds made anything new from his point of view, unless if it's free software like the GNU C Compiler is. Torvalds wanted the GPL license because of the quality of open source software that can be achieved to scaling knowledge and skills. He couldn't have pulled it of without the GNU C Compiler, because he couldn't have GPL'ed linux without the GPL/GNU C compiler. Stallman then used the fact that linux became so popular to try and keep all that software GPL, and he did a great job. So they don't have the same opinions, I'm guessing they can even hardly stand each other, but none of them would be what they are today without the other, and both are instrumental in the present world computing situation, but the entire software that exists today, is the fruit of the work of thousands of coders, that could leverage their skills by working together thanks to the GPL license.
It's still only a license, it says nothing about copyright. Copyright is inalienable, it sticks to the creator, and will even stick to his estate up to 70 years after his death.
Would everybody be able to use computing as they do today without linux... probably not. Would everybody be able to use computing as they do today without Stallman's GCC or GPL... probably not.
I personally do not agree with everything Stallman or Torvalds say. I think the both of them are very intelligent people, and the things they say are said for a reason, but to take the words of either of them literally without reservations is just something that I find not acceptable. I do understand why they put forward what they put forwards and why they put it forwards like they do, but the real answer - as always - is in a combination of both extremes, and the great thing is, that the GPL license allows for everyone to use it for a useful solution, whatever their point-of-view is.
In my view, the great thing about open source software is, that it's better quality, safer, more user-controllable, and more functional, and that it's an eternal project in development. That allows me to make more money by using open source software, because it's easy and cheap to customize, it's very reliable, and it has a much higher performance level. Open source software also puts the developers in the front row, because their skills are directly remunerated by producing products based on open source, whereas in closed source software, developers are locked up and niched shut by a corporation that just exploits the developers and then makes money, not with the developers work, but by asset-laundering (same as money-laundering, except that you don't evade taxes, you evade developer rights like copyright and licensing rights) it into corporate IP.
Just think of this for a change: how much would you now be paying for a mail account if there were no GPL licensed open source software? How much would you be paying for other services if it were impossible for a nerd in a garage to set up a server and start a service company? Everyone owes everything to open source software nowadays. And in that, Torvalds stresses the more money that you can make with your skills and labour thanks to it, and Stallman stresses the fact that you can start to make money without investing any money, just by investing your skills and labour... in the end, it's all the same end result, you can do more in less time, with less effort and investment, and with a greater return.
If you want to really know what the advantages of open source software are in comparison to closed source software, don't look at Torvalds or Stallman, take out your pocket calculator and do the math. I've given multiple examples of this already over the past year on this forum. Who cares about politics or philosophy on the work floor... just do the math, and if you're honest with yourself when you do the math, you'll know why open source software has HUGE advantages over closed source software.
And it's not only about the money, it's also about work/life balance, about taking control of the tools instead of the tools taking control over you. Especially people that work a lot of hours, benefit greatly by investing just a little thinking time before implementing technical solutions. Not only the obvious choice of getting open source software that is a perfect match for your individual needs, which is not even possible with closed source software, but also the added control over services and how they work for you. Do you really want to let Google decide what you need to do when, or do you want to decide that yourself. If you decide it yourself, do you really have to give up convenient services, or can you get even more convenient services instead that you have completely under control yourself? Etc...