BSD distro which depended on GNU have in many instances replaced GNU by non-GNU stuff to align better with the BSDL model.
I would argue that a complete replacement for what a GNU person would call "binutils" is a ship of theseus situation. Or, replacement of core dependency on GCC by llvm.
It's still BSD. It's still under the derivatives of the 2, 3, ISC and MIT clause licence.
So you could recurse. For a tool like LLVM which is bound by some licence, if you e.g. replaced it by rust, would it still be bound? It's a good question. I think (personally) that the licence acceptance is to the goods not the language, it's an assert by the controlling authority and isn't bound to C or ASM. If they wrote the rust, and distributed the rust to deliver the function, the function is what makes it "ship of theseus" or "my grandfathers axe"
BSD distro which depended on GNU have in many instances replaced GNU by non-GNU stuff to align better with the BSDL model.
I would argue that a complete replacement for what a GNU person would call "binutils" is a ship of theseus situation. Or, replacement of core dependency on GCC by llvm.
It's still BSD. It's still under the derivatives of the 2, 3, ISC and MIT clause licence.
So you could recurse. For a tool like LLVM which is bound by some licence, if you e.g. replaced it by rust, would it still be bound? It's a good question. I think (personally) that the licence acceptance is to the goods not the language, it's an assert by the controlling authority and isn't bound to C or ASM. If they wrote the rust, and distributed the rust to deliver the function, the function is what makes it "ship of theseus" or "my grandfathers axe"
(I am not a lawyer)