Actually, that does seem to fit with the rational behind the LGPL. If you're going to write free software that replicates a proprietary program or library's fu

Actually, that does seem to fit with the rational behind the LGPL. If you're going to write free software that replicates a proprietary program or library's functionality without adding anything new, rms believes you should make it available to the widest possible audience with the hope that more contributions will trickle back. However, I'm also sure I've heard him say that nonfree software is unequivocally unethical even on a free platform. Hell, didn't he say recently something about not being able to justify using proprietary medical equipment to save his life unless he immediately would embark on a quest to produce a free equivalent? Maybe he makes a distinction between trying to free future adopters from total proprietariness (i.e. in the case of games and LGPL'd libraries) versus trying to make people who have already taken the red pill 100% free.