But if each corporation forked their own kernel, after a few years of customizing the code to their needs, they would each be developing their own operaging system so all software would only run on company systems and would not be compatible with customer's systems.

I agree with you 100%, no exceptions. Strongly agree. I say the GPL is socialist. What those people don't consider is that there are many countries in the world where no court will take a case over a software license.

The ISC license is a libertarian license.

Tell me your opinion on one thing. I've considered that if Torvalds changes the license to AGPLv3, meaning servers have to publish their source code, it would an extremely quick collapse and abandonment of Linux. The GPLv2 Linux kernel can have binary code in it, but a AGPLv3 must be 100% open source, and Google would ban Linux on all corporate systems, Microsoft would ban it, CISCO would ban it, IBM would ban it, a complete implosion. What do you say?

But if all those corporations adopt one of the BSD's operating systems, due to the BSD and ISC license, the corporations can ignore those licenses and develop on more complete, stable, secure, long term reliable system. Linux is a collection of various parts forced together. BSD is a complete operating system from a single couple of developers who all have commit access to every part of the system.

I found Bridgy Fed to enable Bluesky to communicate with Mastodon.

What does the law say where your brother lives?

That graphic is meaingless because it's strictly a random guess, it is not a poll with the name of who commisioned the poll asking random citizens and saying what was their method for doing the poll.

All 3 leaders did not do well, Eby was by far the most dismissive and arrogant, and the questions were stupid.

No, I do not.