On Jan 6, 2008 1:39 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
quoted text
>     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.

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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