On Jan 6, 2008 1:39 PM, Richard Stallman  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.
> The part of the practical effect that is negative is something we

quoted text
> 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

quoted text
> 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