We Can Only Have (Software) Freedom as Long as Viable Choices Remain
The licence is insufficient, except in theory (or for relatively small programs in less complex/complicated systems)
THERE are many actively-developed distributions of GNU/Linux, even if new releases are infrequent. With all sorts of (virtually) 'package-less' applications that are self-contained single files the very notion of having to maintain a large repository for each distro (or each family of related distros) is sort of "out the window". But they try to promote all sorts of monocultures which means some software will only work for you as long as you use PulseAudio, systemd, Wayland and so on.
People should resist what was recently dubbed "vertical software monocultures" by OpenBSD's founder Theo de Raadt. Diversity is a strength and freedom not exercised means rigid components and no real choice, just a hypothetical choice (or illusion). ChromeOS is an example of what happens when one company controls everything; the same is true for Chrome, which is proprietary software that tries to impose DRM and "attestation" or WEI on Web users (and can probably get away with it owing to considerable market share worldwide).
Do not let any single company control the direction of GNU/Linux. █