If a piece of software is licensed under any of the approved licenses, I don’t see a problem. If it isn’t, well then it simply isn’t open source (nor it is “proprietary ‘open source‘”), and that’s a problem only if it’s advertised as being open source.

Diluting the oceanically diluted term ‘open source’ might help confuse a few people – but most of the people they’re confusing are windiots anyway so it is hardly a loss to the ‘free software’ world. ‘open source’ has already done the ‘damage’ anyway – by trying to win a shallow popularity contest rather than focusing on strong principals.

Free software has always had an uneasy relationship with proprietary platforms – originally because it had no completely free system to run on. There have been many efforts to make lost of it work on all sorts of platforms, from solaris (which is very linux-like anyway), to macos ot macosx to windows to amigaos.

When working on Evolution I was a bit upset by the effort to port it to win32 – I did nothing to help and intentionally used posixy linuxy things everywhere in my code to make the effort more difficult. But it is free software, so if people want to spend the money on it then they are exercising the rights we intentionally gave them.

It’s actually a deliberate typo. See this. Port 25 is a Linux opposition department in disguise. Its purpose is to study Linux and approach Linux developers in order to port applications to Windows and leave Free platforms abandoned. See Groklaw’s coverage on the same topic. It’s no conspiracy; it’s true. In fact, Ballmer’s remarks on this topic have been too telling.