I would not go with the wording "infection". See the point would be: Others being really infected and confronted with illness would suffer under those assignments - I know about what I'm writing because in some way it would affect myself. For sure I know what you want to criticize, but may I propose an alternative description?

Corporate misusage. For sure companies and corporations are using tools same way as everyone, but the point is: They don't understand principles and values like moral or ethics. So they will try for sure to circumvent the ethical point for free, libre software and make it "theirs" and that completely. The outcome is a disaster for sure! Therefore companies should fork their version for own usage and be kept outside development. This would result in slower processing, but nevertheless it would be better and going the way from the community for the community instead of having people within their jobs doing the code and documentation. We can see today that outcome won't be better for free and libre culture.

Debian is leaving their own social contract with their voting now:

(https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/20 … 00000.html)

Nobody questions the point and that's the root problem: "At this point basically no new computer works well without proprietary firmware!"
But the generic talk is: "Hey, we want new(er) computers also to run, so please make something." Let's be honest: GNU/Linux is damaged and won't get better.

Yes, absolutely as free and libre soft- / hardware is nevertheless needed more than ever before. A society based on top of free culture, free sharing of information and learning without boundaries in technical aspects is a society oriented onto values and principles for inclusion of all earthlings, of a global society going free from growing prejudices or the thought being "better" just because of having "more" (of whatever). It is one point of saving for many things, especially information, data and more.

A good note to be made for all of this: The more you try to be or create an alternative, the more you will become the next thing in usage and overcome therefore yourself and your once own motivation for doing!

GNU/Linux and Linux in general have reached for sure the point the same way as other projects (for example one to be named is Mastodon). We need to face the reality: This won't be repaired. So the conclusion is also: Not creating alternatives, just create something and staying true for principles and values in our hectical and harsh times. Yes this means also to exclude parts: But this is a free decision and Hyperbola is doing this for the own motivation. We do ours, others do theirs.

Congratulations (sarcastic meant): Next project going down the "corporate open-source"-path is GDB: https://www.phoronix.com/news/GDB-Debug … r-Protocol

Yes, this seems "only" to be one further protocol supported. But please rethink who is managing that definition: Exactly, Microsoft. Corporations and companies have nothing in mind with ethics or moral, they just support pragmatic choices or do one time part the "correct" when they have for real no other choice. Nevertheless is the wording "correct" also again relative meant: They have no interest in empathy and solidarity. And then think again: Why including those within free and libre culture?

Based on one concrete case? Yes. Context on the long-run: No. The reasoning behind to take the kernel "Linux" as one example: The more parts of non-free firmware-blobs and code to calling them are implemented, the higher the guarantee that GNU/Linux-libre in a whole will fail for sure at a point. Same for other projects now like GDB: The more problematic interfaces, API-calls and more are implemented the higher the point of no return where it is going to be impossible to remove them without breaking the whole project.

Yes, a fork is nevertheless possible. That part is for the good. But this is more to demonstrate the failed decisions being made and to rely on wrong courses. How to solve that? Well, that would be the right interesting part of the discussion: I think this kind of discussion would need right more attention. But for this the original problem has to be seen and even though: It is not. Just the approval of the good old named "systemd is free software"-argument, which is coming from the same region and fails immediately.

There are possible scenarios to mitigate nevertheless: Doing a fork, even a hard fork. But this includes the whole infrastructure at a point and that's the reasoning why the danger is not seen. When done, the workload is important. When prepared better - having seen the danger for example - it would be easier. But for this the FSF is failing even at this simple comparison: They state that nmap (another example) is using a non-free licensing (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Nmap) but fail otherwise directly on Rust as acknowledged being "free and libre" (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Rust). Both are NOT free per definition, as nmap is even using a comparable license-scheme with only granted changes when asked for permission - same as Rust. So the point is nevertheless big, not named and not seen, or ignored as irrelevant.

I understand why you are on the point that there is some kind of way forward. But from my point of view: This is not the case. Even though there are good people, in the long run free and libre culture cannot survive with clear principles and values. The license alone is here only the helper for the fork. But when no one sees the need doing so at a point, the workload will be even higher. And taking the concept of us humans following most time the masses many people just give up and accept the called "status quo". Getting all convinience for the "little price" to pay (that one will grow for sure the same as the complexity of systems will grow until no one understands them).

We have here right out different levels:

a) technical level of complexity growing
b) social scale of complexity

Both are in relation and even though technical speaking complexity could be overcome - the computer can be handled deterministic - the social scale will never get reduced onto deterministic explanation models. That's the part where it gets out of hand and we never can solve social issues with technology itself. So we need either to accept that technology should stay at a point where one or some people can get a overlook ... or we accept that at one point it looks like "magic" (sorry for this wording here) and we accept that others decide for us, while those others even themselves don't understand any longer the systematics. I would like to call this the greatest problem at all: Pure chaos! The reasoning to stay at the side of technical emancipation, which includes also reducing the complexity and being as lightweight as possible. It is in general the question: What is the acceptance of people and how do they compare? How much are people ready to configure themselves and stay in control? A question to be answered over time - I fear without the positive outcome.

Yes, per definition nmap is using a partly problematic license: BSD-like-SVN
Here is the excerpt:

 4. The hosted project names must not be used to endorse or promote
    products derived from this software without prior written
    permission. For written permission, please contact info@collab.net.

Even though it is one file I think for the moment we could remove it. But I'm not finally sure because it is that problematic in regards to modifications.
Also:

Covered Software is licensed to you under the terms of the GPL
(Exhibit A), with all the exceptions, clarifications, and additions
noted in this Main License Body. Where the terms in this Main License
Body conflict in any way with the GPL, the Main License Body terms
shall take precedence. These additional terms mean that You may not
distribute Covered Software or Derivative Works under plain GPL terms
without special permission from Licensor.

Within: https://github.com/nmap/nmap/blob/master/LICENSE
So even when we would try to modify that package, we would need to ask for permission to distribute it in that form. In other we would need to fork and rename all naming for "nmap" and possibly relicense it again, if possible. In the end: Too much work for no further outcome. Same problems as Rust has and therefore a strict removal.

There's an alternative called "masscan".

Yes, "masscan" was mentioned already in the IRC. But in the end it was marked as no further alternative. Nevertheless: That's the major issue. So we will remove nmap and all depending packages.

The Hurd is not fitting the mission further near towards a Unix-compliant system. It is not only about modularity but also about the chance of a complete system like BSDs are doing. Idea is that we should leave the on-going field of being "against" something and more "for" something.

So we are oriented onto freedom, about community-driven software projects and ideas, helping each other in technical emancipation and being inbound with solidarity and empathy. The essentials of Hyperbola have their roots especially in those parts. While being critical towards the development of non-free software, it should not be the only paradigm to follow and leave the horizont open onwards a complete free and libre system, delivering for sure on the wording "operating-system". If the Hurd or also GNU/Hurd is there at one day, sure a tryout here within the community ... why not? But it is a pity that this project has not received that attention it should have and nevertheless is taken in the back for the Linux-kernel marking it as "GNU/Linux".

Personally I would call that a false balance as GNU/Linux has proven not being oriented onto free and libre culture. In fact it is and was just pure pragmatism driven until today and people just don't want to see or recognize the problems rising further. That much dependencies of non-free drivers and interfaces being implemented, that much technology stacks with problematic licensing around ... won't give freedom back to the users. Loosing the control of the own system, while the idea for HyperbolaBSD is giving that especially back: Having full control about the system running. Not that many cared for GNU/Hurd especially also and GNU/Linux is not free and libre per definition making GNU/Linux-libre even more complicated from one release to another. But the idea of BSDs is to deliver a complete system, even though also here not that many people having much more interests. Bad times for free and libre, community-driven software and projects. But never giving up.

Most of the data from non-freed GNU/Linux kernels it's composed of blobs and propietary firmware. Think about it. You download a huge > 1GB sized TGZ file, and more than half of it it's propietary.

Also, the so-called "free" Radeon drivers. They aren't. They might work with modesetting drivers from X.org. And they do, at least enough to switch resolutions. But if you don't disable the 3D acceleration explicitly, with the "AccelMethod" option being set to "none", you will crash your X.org server.

OFC Hyperbola BSD might suffer the same fate, but at least having two different libre *Nix systems will allow to
share code back and forth, and maybe, someone will reimplement a patch with libre fw for Radeon systems enough
to run GL 2.1 natively instead of using LLVM, enough to play videos without overheating your machine.