2008/1/5, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32 > API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some > Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was > free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free > OS's. > > I don't object to implementing free software to support APIs that > users use.
Yet you object a general purpose, free software that implements a facility that users use? Namely, the port system? I think we are running in circles here... so if you can, please explain: How would the ports system encourage the use of non-free software anymore than ReactOS? You said: > There is a lot of non-free software written for the Lose32 API, but Well, like I said in my pass message, the main purpose of ReactOS would be to run software that are only compatible with Win32 (Lose32?) API, simply because they are non-free (and possibly buried with EULA and/or NDA) such that they cannot be ported to a free OS. Whereas ports system on the other hand, is just a general purpose tool and it supports much much more free software than non-free software... if you like to put it this way, there are going to be more users installing non-free software on ReactOS than users installing non-free software on OpenBSD with ports. Don't get me wrong, I love to see a stable version of ReactOS someday, these days I had to run Windows XP in a virtual machine, as a "just in case" thing for school and work, and I couldn't wait to replace it with ReactOS. So I got to ask this... is it the case that you only care if a "url to potentially non-free web-sites" are included in such systems? > there is also a lot of private (unreleased) software which runs on > that API. Thus, its use is not only for running proprietary software. I don't know much about 'private/unreleased software'... but the ports system does support a large number of free software - certainly fits the criteria of "its use is not only for running proprietary software." > I would ask the developers of platforms that run the Lose32 API > to tell the users that running proprietary Windows apps is not freedom. I haven't actually used the port system for non-free software, but "if memory serves", the ports system does display a warning/disclaimer/license/EULA if you do try to install non-free stuff. -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
