@wall0159 >cited some very minor binary blobs >doesn't change the fact that Linux is open source.
This level of doublethink is incredible.

Lets say we have a GNU/Well. Someone adds some proprietary poison to the well and now the well is 99.95% water and 0.05% poison.

You say that the well is not poisoned as that's only a "minor" amount of poison (after all, it's only 0.05% percentage wise), but if you drink the proprietized water, you're getting poisoned.

The same happens with kernels once you add proprietary software - they become poison for your freedom, as you cannot exercise the 4 essential freedoms with the whole kernel; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms - thankfully GNU has made a 100% free version of Linux available; https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/

>seriously, is that the best evidence you have to support your argument
There's many such cases, but I've lost my record of all of them and don't have time right now to re-find them all.

Even though it's only one case, it's perfectly adequate evidence that Linux contains proprietary software and therefore cannot be legitimately be referred to as "open source" by any meaning.

>Your original comment is simply not true >a few binary blobs
Why do you contradict yourself so many times?

Let me get this straight, you're saying proprietary software, without source code qualifies as "open source"?

The "open source definition" certainly doesn't agree with you; https://opensource.org/osd

You appear be to using "open source" as a buzzword - I'm guessing you mean something along the lines of; "participatory development" and if you mean that, please just say "Linux is participatory" or "Linux is open to commits" (you can even not mention that proprietary ones are accepted too) rather than something completely different.