... the correct answer is always "No".

Alex, what is "Doctor Strangelove"?

And of course the Boston office of the FBI was an arm of Whitey Bulger's Winter Hill gang for decades.

CERT looks really cool, but it doesn't appear to be open source; at least there doesn't seem to be a download link anywhere. It looks as if there's a company called "Emotient" that's commercializing the tech. It might have been open source at some point but it looks proprietary now.

First you quote RMS saying that "it's ultimately up to the developers" and then, in the next sentence, you slam him for saying that it "is ultimately up to him". Then you confuse trademark - which isn't relevant here, with copyright - which is.

You asked for an explanation, so here goes: When you write some code, the law gives you a "copyright", which says that you get to control whether, and under what terms, other people can copy it. Your code, your copyright. There are many people (and organizations) that have contributed code to Linux, and each holds the copyright for the code that they wrote. So what RMS is pointing out, correctly, is that each copyright holder gets to decide whether they want to change the terms under which they will license their code.

So RMS's reasoning (note lack of quotation marks) is sound. Note that I'm not taking sides here but I don't think that your cheap shot at RMS was "insightful" or even fair.