@colinsmatt11 rms didn't set out to make a Unix clone - he set out to write a free software OS, that happens to be mostly compatible with Unix, but GNU's Not Unix.
The Unix design of having individual programs that do one task made development feasible - they just have to replace the malware piece by piece and eventually a fully free software OS was made.
Unix is a mostly sane OS design and it does work - the main problem is that all Unix implementations were and still are, proprietary malware.
@colinsmatt11@screwtape I am pretty sure that GNU Hurd was the original plan; if it is Linux now, it has been forced upon GNU by the neverending development story of the Hurd kernel.
Should we criticize Stallman, it should be for the decision to start the GNU project with doing GCC and friends. It is a big question if the Linux kernel (and countless other free C-based UNIX utilities) had happened at all, if not for there being a gratis high-quality C development system.
@mapcar@screwtape I would criticize Dr Stallman and I do, afterall it was his decision to make a Unix clone because it seemed like a sane base to him at that time.
Pretty sure only the US and a few western countries (Germany?) enforce copyright that way, but then again, there's that Berne bullcrap around so i wouldn't be surprised everyone defaults to all rights reserved.
Fun fact, Hyperbola team considers software under the unlicense to be unacceptable and are also removing any software that has it. Made me chuckle when i saw that.
@colinsmatt11@mapcar withstanding that to an extent #BSD is better, and that distributions of GNU / linux have courted re-kernelling to openbsd or something, a world without gnu compiler collection and its compiled / host linux kernel would be so radically different to today I don't know what to say about it except that we should obviously use lisp machines whatever the case. I believe GNU Hurd is sort-of actively developed, though I haven't played with it.