Happy birthday 🎊🎉 GNU/Linux.
Today GNU/Linux is 32 years old.
It was thankfully released to the public on August 25th, 1991 by Linus Torvalds when he was only 21 years old student.
What a lovely journey 🤍
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
Something is open source or isn't. There's a set, binary definition.
I get the feeling you're implying a difference/aversion between those two terms which doesn't exist. This and the combination with a nonsensical statement about amount of GNU packages vs non-GNU packed makes it feel like you're pushing an agenda here: There's far more free software than just GNU's - that's a success for free software and the GNU project. There's no connect between the argument you're obviously implying.
Also HURD never took off - but why should it? The GNU project's goal is a fully free operating system, with Linux being persuaded to adopt a proper license there's no real need for HURD. It doesn't mean it isn't a fun project.
Which two terms? Everyone has an agenda but I am not sure what I am being accused of here. Do you mean Free Software vs Open Source? The FSF goes to great lengths to distinguish between those two terms:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
I am pretty sure my usage is consistent with the owners and creators of those terms. Have I made an error?
The error is in saying something is made "more open source". The definition:
https://opensource.org/osd/
Does your license uphold these rules? It's open source. Does it not? It isn't.
That is not correct. Who is this "they" you are talking about? The OSI?
Open source is a term with a definition - which has been written by software freedom advocates by the way.
With free software you have politics and a philosophy, in which somebody can have more freedom or less with a piece of software. I really wouldn't confuse that with the practicability of the OSI definition.
Copyleft or push-over is a whole separate topic. Copyleft might be favoured by software freedom enthusiasts, but I disagree with your idea of separation through that. Even if you don't care about software freedom, you could like the practical effects of the AGPL.
I feel like you're spreading at least misguiding information here.
These statements do not contradict anything I have said. Some people are pragmatic, some dogmatic about software freedom. So what?
Another correction since I am on a roll: Linux can't switch from GPLv2. There are too many copyright holders, you'd never be able to contact all of them and get them to agree to a license change. Even if Linus Torvalds wanted to change, which I honestly don't think would be a sensible thing to do in his position.
Open source is one thing but "free" is a lot of things.