no, I'm talking about incorporation of blatantly nonfree materials.

the difference is subtle: the GPL's requirements apply to whole programs, not to whole distributions.

the binary blobs included in Linux are largely believed to be "mere aggregation", not derivative works.

but they're nonfree programs, whether because of obnoxious licenses, and/or for lack of source code, and they're distributed as part of the kernel Linux, which makes Linux nonfree.

this has all long been known, but OSI has always turned a blind eye to it.

now another relevant program comes about that incorporates nonfree materials in its making, and you find a need to go on the record about this fact.

why the different takes? shouldn't you go (or have gone) on the record about Linux as well?

that would give it at least a resemblance of coherence and adherence to principle IMHO.