this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
26 points (93.3% liked)
Linux
13059 readers
175 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't tell if you moving the goal posts is a result of you missing the point or not, but I don't care for your condescending attitude, so I'm not going to bother.
I'm sure companies will do the right thing when given additional tools to avoid doing so π
And what would that goalpost be?
I pointed out that A LOT of core dependencies installed in your system right now are not GNU (the GNU in GNU GPL), and never been. You thought I was talking about GNU the project, not realizing I was actually talking about the license, which proved my point from months ago that people who talk like you are completely clueless about the licenses used by packages in their systems.
The supposition that the GPL dependence ratio is both high and getting significantly lowered is doubly wrong (both parts).
The claim that these moves are de-GPLing ones is also wrong, as trivially proven by the fact that the pattern doesn't even hold (Ubuntu moved to GPL chrony not long ago).
The "rug pull" theory, already invalidated by the falsity of the above suppositions, is independently incoherent, as explained in my previous comment from both a technical and a business/commercial/cost POV.
There are countless angles where an "I'm feeling smart corpos bad" wouldn't be invalid. This is not one of them.
Fwiw while I mostly agree with you, the G in GPL stands for General.
Thanks for pointing that out. It was a case of conflating the two G's in "GNU General Public License".