Every single of those comments is implicitly saying you should violate the IP rights of the FPGA vendor.
There is no realistic way to build an OSS or FOSS toolchain without reverse engineering Vivado and dumping the trade secrets contained in it 1:1
Even if you build a clean room version of Vivado, you still need the FPGA metadata and clean rooming the metadata for all FPGAs is basically impossible.
Once you understand this, then it sounds incredible dishonest to argue that the Linux community should put in the effort to support a hardware vendor that is hostile to offering their own Linux support when that same company's GPU division had no problem publishing an open source GPU driver for Linux.
Yes. You should dare to violate their IP rights and not put your name on the project. Just port the Windows version to Linux by linking it with winelib.
Extracting trade secrets isn't a violation of anyone's IP rights. Trade secrets are protected against being leaked by employees but they are explicitly not protected against reverse engineering.
There is no realistic way to build an OSS or FOSS toolchain without reverse engineering Vivado and dumping the trade secrets contained in it 1:1
Even if you build a clean room version of Vivado, you still need the FPGA metadata and clean rooming the metadata for all FPGAs is basically impossible.
Once you understand this, then it sounds incredible dishonest to argue that the Linux community should put in the effort to support a hardware vendor that is hostile to offering their own Linux support when that same company's GPU division had no problem publishing an open source GPU driver for Linux.