The license doesn’t say whether it’s part of the GNU project.
The existence of other Unix-likes (GNU-likes? :D) or program implementations doesn’t play a major role here, as Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc all use GNU userland. The distinction feels like bike-shedding.
Your first sentence actually reenforced my point.
There’s no requirement from the kernel that the userland is GPL. It’s by chance - and replaceable.
Like with Android - there’s not much left of gnu userland there afaik. If you look at end user devices this makes up the bulk of devices running the Linux kernel.
Looking at today’s landscape of Linux development, replacements for userland is likely to be rust code. The majority of this code is MIT or BSD licensed.
The coreutils implementation was an example of this. It’s not GNU licensed.
The license doesn’t say whether it’s part of the GNU project.
The existence of other Unix-likes (GNU-likes? :D) or program implementations doesn’t play a major role here, as Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc all use GNU userland. The distinction feels like bike-shedding.
Your first sentence actually reenforced my point.
There’s no requirement from the kernel that the userland is GPL. It’s by chance - and replaceable. Like with Android - there’s not much left of gnu userland there afaik. If you look at end user devices this makes up the bulk of devices running the Linux kernel.
Looking at today’s landscape of Linux development, replacements for userland is likely to be rust code. The majority of this code is MIT or BSD licensed. The coreutils implementation was an example of this. It’s not GNU licensed.
This comment doesn’t make any sense to me. Did you read my previous answer to you?