On Jan 6, 2008 1:39 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big > encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words > ) to use or continue using that non-free platform. > > There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed. > > The practical effects are mixed. Making free apps run on non-free > systems paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and > for some users eliminates a motivation to migrate. So it has both > good and bad effects. I don't know which effect is bigger, but I > speculate that the good effect is bigger over all. The negative > effect is limited to power users, people who might switch systems as > if it were an easy thing to do. Most users are reluctant to change > operating systems at all. >
A bad effect is that people still use non-free systems. They should stop relying on that. > The part of the practical effect that is negative is something we > cannot prevent. If we were to delete the Windows support from Emacs > or GCC, that would not stop people from running Emacs or GCC on > Windows. The sort of people that would choose an operating system on > this basis could easily maintain and redistribute such code. > No, but it would encourage people to being more BSD or GNU/Linux like. > The other issue is the message we convey. That is something we can > control, but it also shows the difference between these two cases. > Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and > clear support for its use. Making your free program work with > something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct > message of support. It makes sense to treat the two cases > differently. > > I see no difference in both cases. When the ideal is the same. Encourage only free software. -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
