On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a big practical difference between making a free system > suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a > non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are > different.
The only practical difference is that a free system that _practically_ conforms to your proposed definition still doesn't exist nor is it ready for production. > People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is > unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them > about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching > operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a > non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. Switching operating systems is no bigger deal than switching application software. It is only a big deal if one tries to impose artificial restrictions that certain applications could not be run on certain operating systems. Consider that by providing an easy way to install (and deinstall!) non-free userland application software, a free operating system is simply compensating for the lost revenue that increased availability of the free application software has caused for many people and organisations to remain with non-free operating systems. Please note, that FSF is directly responsible for this revenue loss, too; as it happily provides vast amount of software for Windows users. C.
