> its creation was neither ideologically motivated nor part of some nefarious GPL-erasure scheme

No, they openly refuse to accept any GPL code. And even have a strict policy of not even reading GPL code.

No, once you have an MIT-licensed codebase without a copyright assignment scheme, you no longer have the freedom to relicense it at will. You could attempt to have a mixed-license codebase, which is supported by the GPL, and specify that all new contributions must accept the GPL, but this is tantamount to an incompatible fork of the project from the perspective of any downstream users, and anyone who insists on contributing code under the GPL has the freedom to perform this fork themselves.

This is simply false. You can accept GPL contributions and clearly indicate the names of the contributors as required by MIT. There is no "incompatible fork".

"we cannot accept any changes based on the GNU source code" is false. They are choosing not to accept it.

"We cannot accept it without issuing a breaking change to the project by significantly changing the license terms."

No, plants, bacteria, mushrooms are obviously not sentient as they lack a brain.

It's not reasonable for a website to find out about my browser version, OS, keyboard layout and a zillion other things, fuck this.

All these things should be opt-in and like blocked by GDPR.

No, fingerprinting is a synonym of deanonymization.

No. If everyone (or browser installs) had identical fingerprints... Good luck deanonymising them.

Then avoid GrapheneOS

When you have to trust the OS images generated by the authors it becomes a massive issue.

You always trust the developers of software. The only way to stop that is to not use the software.

It's the opposite, the economy of scale favors defense.

The missing attribution pattern is nasty.