Why is there an a prori assumption that we want to advocate people leaving Windows with something more forceful than our advice when asked?
Our goal, in my opinion, is to build and use free and open software.
Should Linux refuse to boot if it doesn't find an open source BIOS?
Should it refuse to run in VMWare under Windows?
Does it help or hurt _what_ to port open source apps to Windows?
Why do we _care_ if it "diminishes the chances that users will choose to migrate"?
We should be about _increasing available choices_.
Our goal should be about increasing the *quality* and *availability* of open source- not spreading it by scheming...
In different circumstances, I run Cygwin, and boot Linux under Windows, and run Open Office and Mozilla under Windows. At home, I have the luxury of a system that is only what I have compiled myself- but professionally, I don't have that luxury.
This isn't all that different from the reasons I have to search for BSD or Apache licensed software to use it professionally...
It all boils down to the philosophical goals of the GPL vs. the goals of the Apache license...
If you accept the intent of the GPL, it makes perfect sense not to even allow building on non-free platforms, just as you wouldn't allow linking.
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds