What? Is is absolutely source code. In a way, they are forks from upstream. They address the problematic areas of the upstream software that concern the free software community that upstream doesn't want to address. GNU Icecat, for example, can be used without ever thinking about Mozilla's trademark policy since it's completely rebranded, and Linux-libre addresses all of the problematic areas of the upstream Linux kernel.
There's no need for a code split, since that's what you seem to be talking about. While I would love to see the upstream Linux kernel adopt the changes that are made in Linux-libre, I doubt that will happen any time soon. In the meantime, we have a kernel that is entirely freedom-respecting. What would we use without Linux-libre? The HURD is not really ready for prime time, and developing an entirely new kernel from scratch would take alot of time and energy and gain us... what, exactly? We'd gain an entirely free kernel *all over again*? We already have one. So I see nothing bad about maintaining what is essentially a fork of the Linux kernel, and incorporating changes from new releases of the Linux kernel when they occur, and plenty of good stuff reasons to do so.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature