I have been following the argument surrounding the development of AmaroK on windows.

Occasionally I write about the subject of FLOSS for a print magazine.
I am keen to understand all sides to this argument, so I can present it to my editor. I look forward to reading the replies, seeing where this debate goes, and joining in.

So should FLOSS code be ported across to a proprietary environment?

No. If I ever write F/OSS code I'm going to license it under a variant of the GPL with a few lines added to it that will prevent binary releases for proprietary operating systems. Something like "only binaries compiled with GCC may be distributed" would probably work, though that's probably overly strict.

I flatly oppose putting Free code on a proprietary system because the user is still denied his freedom on said system.

Nope.. If they want to try our mega-awesome software, then they should come to us [/joke]

Actually, I don't know. While it maybe nice to show them how our software is cool, without having to install linux or so, but nobody wants them running all of our software on their OS

Extreme Coder

We already have Firefox, OpenOffice.org, the GIMP, and GAIM/Pidgin running on Windows.
Running an entire stack of "free stuff" (ignoring the Firefox argument here) on a non-free OS is still a lack of freedom. I'd push for all the stuff businesses use to stop getting put on windows- MySQL and similar- so businesses will actually see a price benefit from GNU/Linux, which would raise interest therein.

Restricting who may use software based solely on what operating system they use is just as bad as what Microsoft does.

It's either free, or not free. If you have software under a free license, then you of all people should be the last person on Earth trying to restrict how people use your software.

I don't think it should really be ported to [insert propietary environment here], though it's easily arguable. Some might argue that if someone tries it they might make "the switch", but really, if you just gave them everything they needed on [insert propietary environment here], and there needs are then met ... why would they switch? I guess on the other hand though, at least it raises awareness/usage ...

I agree with this. If it is free, let it be free. I do like the simple restrictions that the GPL place, however. If you want the source code, you can have it. You can modify the program however you want and no one will ever have to know...UNLESS...you release the modified program, then you have to share your changes with the world so that they may benefit just as you have.

Freely you have received, so freely give.

I agree that the GPL is generally beneficial, though it does have its problem areas.

But still, I've got to agree that forcing one to keep the license free is the best part. I just don't like that you're restricted to keeping every bit of it GPL, because then you run into license compatibility issues and such.

No, I don't think it should.

I love Amarok, it's great. Porting it to Windows would probably result in a lot of idiots looking for exploits and shit.

All this porting to Windows means that those potential switchers wouldn't switch because they don't have a reason to switch! For example, the Xbox 360 gives people a reason to buy, since they have an exclusive killer app. which in this case is Halo 3. They would lose a lot of potential buyers if for example Halo 3 came out on the Nintendo Wii(which itself, has a lot of exclusive titles).

The fact is, Linux isn't for that 98% of people (or whatever figure it is).

Not yet at least.

I think this would violate freedom 0 of free software, "The freedom to run the program for any purpose.", meaning your software wouldn't be free at all. Also, people could just use MinGW, since that's a port of the GNU toolchain (which includes GCC) to Windows.

As for the issue of free software on proprietary platforms, well I found it nice to be able to take Firefox with me from Windows to Linux, and someone with a lot of cross-platform free software would probably appreciate it even more. So for that, I approve of it.

Actually, upon thinking about it my tactic would probably be "you cannot distribute binaries for proprietary operating systems". You can even change the code if you want.

Oh come on!

Of course Amarok other great F/OSS software should be ported to proprietary systems! I'd love to be able to tip my friends (who would not benefit of using Ubuntu/Linux today) about this great program. Just like would never try to force Linux on someone that I do not believe will benefit from trying it out / switching I wouldn't try to indirectly force other's to use Linux.

For ordinary users, using Thunderbird, OO, Firefox and Gimp and other programs available cross-platform makes it easier to "take the plunge" and increases the freedom of choice between operating systems.

What's up with the "If it is only in Linux than user's will be forced to switch to use it and that's good" argument? That is like M$: "If we let .doc-files only be opened in our programs, user's will be forced to use our programs".

Where did the freedom aspect go? And do the ones saying this in this thread really believe that F/OSS has so few great pieces of software that we need to "hold on to what we can"? Maybe you should think again and take into perspective the vast amount of free functionality provided with Linux.

Port what is possible and let core functions naturally be available in the different operating systems. It shouldn't be the applications, but the OS that makes a difference. Try to port the freedom of being able to modify, customize, fix and distribute 95% of all software on your computer for free. That is naturally only possible where 90% already is proprietary - no matter how much GIMP and OO.org you have installed in those machines.

I think the decision as to whether or not their FLOSS code gets ported to a proprietary environment should be made entirely by the author(s) of said code.

How are people going to know how great Linux, etc is without being treated to some OSS code every now and then?

Except that doesn't work under the GPL and similar licenses. Someone else can make the port instead, leaving the author high and dry.

They've got Firefox and OO.org. If you give them all the free apps on a non-free system, the non-free system will retain its dominance in the market. The only way to get real freedom to the masses in operating systems is by hurting Microsoft. Porting F/OSS code to Windows hurts the Free Software movement.
Porting it to the Mac, however, could be useful in hurting Microsoft's dominance, but care must be taken to ensure that it doesn't simply replace Microsoft with Apple.

I would actually argue the opposite - Microsoft reinvent pretty much every technology partly in order to minimise the contact that their customers have with rivals.

Ports of Free Software upset this by introducing MS customers that aren't UNIX-savvy to alternative products and ways of thinking, as well as allowing Free Software users to carry some of that with them in places where closed platforms are mandatory.

Every developer that deals with Subversion, MySQL, PHP etc. learns a little about Free Software and Open Source, and I suspect that the mass of clued-in people is partly what is forcing proprietary software vendors to change their policies and open up in unprecedented ways.

As other people have said, effectively trying to restrict or punish people for not agreeing with you also seems to contradict the ideal of freely sharing.

We need gateway applications.

I started with Firefox in windows then Thunderbird. This got me interested in FOSS. Now I run Ubuntu at home.

Key introductory applications are a good thing.

I also agree that if it is free it is free.

I think it's fine to let OSS be ported to other OS's. But it becomes a problem when that other OS becomes priority #1. Look what happened with Firefox. Linux got bumped down to #2.

Don't worry, MS has a penchant for hurting itself.

And I think the whole anti-MS mindset tends to marginalize the F/OSS movement as a whole. It is very easy to dismiss bomb-throwers (figuratively speaking, of course).