> Why should they be forced to merge patches that don't relate to the GNU software ecosystem?
They don't need to. Color emoji worked by default until it was deliberately broken. AppleScript support currently exists and works; what was being proposed is that it be removed simply because it interacts with a feature which is unique to a non-free operating system.
> Adding Applescript compatibility means that contributors who maintain that code require proprietary hardware to fix these issues.
You seem to be working towards the conclusion that Free Software should only be usable within a fully Free environment, which is pretty thoroughly out of step with the expectations and requirements of actual users.
> what was being proposed is that it be removed simply because it interacts with a feature which is unique to a non-free operating system.
Right. Why should the GNU maintainers be responsible for maintaining code that only executes in a proprietary runtime? If you want these features, you should petition your Emacs distributor to package it. Otherwise, this is a silly fight over who's responsible for what. GNU developers are no more responsible for ensuring MacOS compatibility than Apple is responsible for ensuring GNU compliance.
> You seem to be working towards the conclusion that Free Software should only be usable within a fully Free environment
No, but all Free Software should work as-expected in a Free environment. Mac users should be well-familiar with the advantages of writing tight-knit native software.
> Why should the GNU maintainers be responsible for maintaining code that only executes in a proprietary runtime?
It didn't need maintenance. The only reason being put forth for removing it was that it interacted with a feature of a non-free OS.
> GNU developers are no more responsible for ensuring MacOS compatibility...
I'm unsure what you're trying to say here.
Are you trying to draw a line between "GNU developers" and other developers? If so, who are those other developers?
Are you trying to suggest that the developers of GNU Emacs should start ignoring all bugs reported running their software on macOS (or Windows, for that matter) because they aren't responsible for "ensuring compatibility"? If so, who is responsible for that? Is anyone?
> No, but all Free Software should work as-expected in a Free environment.
Non sequitur. What I'm arguing here is that Free Software should not deliberately cripple itself or discard features simply to match the limitations it would have if running under a Free operating system. That sort of thing just makes Free Software look bad; it isn't going to convince anyone that life would be better with a Free operating system.
They don't need to. Color emoji worked by default until it was deliberately broken. AppleScript support currently exists and works; what was being proposed is that it be removed simply because it interacts with a feature which is unique to a non-free operating system.
> Adding Applescript compatibility means that contributors who maintain that code require proprietary hardware to fix these issues.
You seem to be working towards the conclusion that Free Software should only be usable within a fully Free environment, which is pretty thoroughly out of step with the expectations and requirements of actual users.