Yes.
Anyone who cares about user freedoms is not choosing a permissive licence.
The problem is developers only caring about themselves and other developers.
When I talk to devs I know who like FOSS, they are always focussed on their needs as a dev when it comes to licences. The real concern was, and always should be, for the software user’s freedoms.
This really depends on her hardware specs and what applications she needs to use.
Without knowing any of that, I would suggest Linux Mint. It is desktop user focussed and a good general OS. It includes drivers and common software in their version of an app store.
Debian is my distro of choice, but is not ideal for a new Linux user.
I would suggest checking what apps she needs and making sure they are available on Linux, or that a close equivalent is. Any apps that will be replaced, try the replacement out on Windows first if available. For example Adobe Illustrator to Inkscape, or MS Office to Libre Office.
For data transfer:
As others have said. Backup the current computer fully. This in probably best done on an external hard drive. Make sure you know how to reinstall windows and restore from the backup.
Copy all her data onto a different external hard drive. This is not the backup. It is a separate drive.
Make sure all the data is actually on the external hard drive and readable from a different machine. Ideally boot from a Lunx live USB and check that the data can be accessed from the external drive.
Install her distro of choice.
Copy her data from the external HDD to her user account’s home folder of newly installed Linux.
I see what you mean. Yes there are great examples like those that offer support contracts for the open source software projects.
I think one point of confusion here is that as open source licenced projects, they do not restrict commercial use. The companies that lead the development just happen to also offer the best paid support.
Minor correction: proxmox is AGPL so free to use commercially without their support contract.
Ubuntu and LibreOffice are both free for commercial use. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
It’s no longer open source if you restrict commercial usage. Sure, licence your software that way if you want to, but don’t call it open source.
Developers should absolutely get paid for their work, but as @mina86@lemmy.wtf said, that is is a different issue. There are plenty of companies that employ developers of FOSS code, both copyleft and permissive licence.