>The boycott of Apple is promoted by the League for Programming
>Freedom.  The LPF isn't concerned with question of whether a program
>is free software or not.  It's concerned with something more
>fundamental: whether you are allowed to write the program at all.
>
>I personally care strongly whether any given program is free.  But the
>LPF doesn't share that view.  From the LPF's point of view, it doesn't
>matter whether a program for an Apple machine is free software or not.
>
>The idea of the boycott is that Apple is attacking your freedom and
>everyone's freedom, so it makes sense to take your business
>elsewhere--to buy a computer from someone else.

In the same way, you are attacking my freedom to choose. If I wish to
"join" in the effort to create a viable system, I better not choose to use
some old discarded Apple hardware.

I don't know about others, but my purchase decisions are not influenced by
any of the gnu or Berkeley software. I certainly would not purchase Apple
hardware in order to run a Un*x system. A/UX is a great advocate for the
"buy something else" philosophy.

What I am faced with is "hand-me-down" hardware that is no longer cutting
edge, but still has useful life. By your boycott, you are in effect
becoming the ostrich with its head in the sand. GCC runs well on my MacII
despite your efforts to "prevent" it. Because you refuse to acknowledge the
customization that I need for my environment, I become a leach on your
efforts rather than a contributor. By systematically excluding a whole
class of users, you weaken your effectiveness. With the added contribution
of those additional programmers, you might reach a point that you have a
product that beats Apple at their own game. By ignoring the strong points
of Apple's systems, you assure that anyone who finds the Apple OS
attractive will choose to buy from Apple because there is no reasonable
alternative.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------