This is one of the few things I agree with RMS on. However, I think I can capture what he's trying to say in a more succinct way: I like to think of a hack as an exploit or usage of something -- could be a computer, could be chopsticks -- in a way that is unanticipated or unintended.
As he says, the utility does not really matter: it could be just a neat trick, or pure entertainment value, or intellectual gratification, or a security vulnerability, or something genuinely useful.
Ironically, by his own definition, I also think most of RMS' own work cannot be called "hacking". Gcc and emacs, for instance, are simply very useful software engineering projects, but in themselves not hacks as a whole. On the other hand, his one work that is clearly a clever hack is the GPL, which uses copyright to transfer control of rights to those whom it was not intended for.
As he says, the utility does not really matter: it could be just a neat trick, or pure entertainment value, or intellectual gratification, or a security vulnerability, or something genuinely useful.
Ironically, by his own definition, I also think most of RMS' own work cannot be called "hacking". Gcc and emacs, for instance, are simply very useful software engineering projects, but in themselves not hacks as a whole. On the other hand, his one work that is clearly a clever hack is the GPL, which uses copyright to transfer control of rights to those whom it was not intended for.