He’s right.

I think there’s something more going on here than just “marketing”. Because if you look at the tiny thumbnail in the OP it’s very clearly red, and you can even load that thumbnail into an image editor and zoom in to see slightly reddish pixels.

So something happens when scaling this image that actually results in a red hue, and I don’t think my computers image scaling algorithms are also falling for “marketing”. I would guess it’s actually some kind of sub-pixel trick that makes it seem like there’s colors there which aren’t, and that’s why the image scaling algorithms also reveal the same colors you see.

The image was modified, I think the original said something like “we’re gonna listen to Russian number stations on shortwave radio”

Controversial opinion: Copyleft is actually more free than permissive licenses.

Because the way the GPL works is how the world would be if there were no licenses and no copyright at all. Because then anything made public is free to use. And if I were to reverse-engineer a binary then I could still add that code to my software.

But since we live in a world where we play make-believe that you can make something public and still “own it” at the same time (e.g. copyright) and where using reverse-engineered code can still get you into legal trouble, the GPL is using their own silly logic against them (like fighting fire with fire) to create a bubble of software that acts like a world without any licenses.

Permissive licenses don’t do that, they allow your open software to just get repurposed under a non-free paradigm which could never occur in a world with no licenses. And so ironically permissive licensing in a world that is (artifically) non-permissive by default does not reflect a world with no licenses, and is thus less free than Copyleft.