Technically, the article is correct. Indeed, GNU/kWindows is a better name for the resulting OS, and Windows is still very non-free and spies at its users, etc etc.

But: we already know all that. I am a heavy Linux user, and I am quite excited to see it available on Windows. Because Windows is nice and shiny and well-polished and works with hardware and works better for my needs than fully free OS with limited hardware support (especially on the GPU side). I want to work, not endlessly configure my Emacs, I am pro-capitalism (though very anti-surveillance) and I don't even have a beard.

So, thank you, GNU guys, your software is excellent and free. Even if you make it more difficult to use with some software with other licenses, it is still possible, and I am quite happy to add it in the mix. But I don't want to live in your idealized non-commercial world, and your proselytizing became quite boring for the last 25 years.

When I do open source, I use MIT/BSD license, because it helps people unconditionally and doesn't introduce restrictions as those in less free licenses like GPL.