It would be wrong and harmful to give MacOS an "equal footing".
Our goal is to replace nonfree systems (and nonfree software in
general), not to enhance them.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00...Looks like after some hearty back and forth it settled down: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00...
Although it seems they ended up on an "agree to disagree" finale: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg00...
That's pretty much the history of the FSF and the GNU projects considering they were created for political/ideological reasons (the Unix in "GNU's Not Unix" is nonfree/encumbered AT&T UNIX, and the ideological underpinnings are what allowed Linux to overtake BSD during "the troubles" of the early 90s). The pulls ideological and technical pulls have oft conflicted.
As I understood it, also to a degree witnessing it as it happened, this lawsuit spiked BSD at the critical period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc.....
It certainly took Linux a long time to get in the ballpark of quality that BSD started out with at the gate, including the standard TCP/IP stack most everyone used, including Microsoft (initially, at least).
This is, sadly, self-defeating. If Emacs were widely recognized as the best editor (or whatever of its myriad functions you use it for), "works best on GNU/Linux" could advance the cause of free software. As it stands, though, "only works well on GNU/Linux" instead just means that fewer people will be using it.
I wonder what would be the problem with someone using libclang to generate the same AST information in a much more convenient fashion. Will it break the GPL in some way?