I believe "hatred of GPLv3" here is editorializing. "Aversion" seems a better fit.<p>This HN submission links to a chat session complaining that OpenBSD doesn't support gcc with the GPLv3 bits. I didn't see the word "hate" in the chat session.<p>A DDG search shows the title comes from Reddit - <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/gxw3m1/openbsd_is_more_to_blame_for_its_pale_moon/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/gxw3m1/openbsd_is_more...</a> .<p>For context, the OpenBSD page at <a href="https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html</a> says the GPL has a ...:<p>> ... condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.<p>> For historical reasons, the OpenBSD base system still includes the following GPL-licensed components: the GNU compiler collection (GCC) with supporting binutils and libraries, GNU CVS, GNU texinfo, the mkhybrid file system creation tool, and the readline library. Replacement by equivalent, more freely licensed tools is a long-term desideratum.
Context:<p>Gaming4JC is developer for Hyperbola, that is forking OpenBSD: <a href="https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announcing-hyperbolabsd-roadmap/" rel="nofollow">https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announcing-hyperbolabsd-road...</a>