> Your message appears to embody a commonly repeated piece of misinformation
> about how copyleft licenses work. I'm responding in order to squelch its
> continued dissemination, not because I disagree with your conclusion.
> "Is foo a legally a derived work of Bar" is almost never a important
> question with respect to license compliance of bundled software.
> The relevant software license sets out conditions under which is can be
> lawfully reproduced. Absent the license you can not lawfully reproduce the
> software. A license for Bar might specify that you can only reproduce the
> software on a computer that doesn't contain a copy of nethack and the
> requirement would be perfectly enforceable. Not become nethack is somehow
> a derivative of Bar and is thus tainted by bar's license but simply
> because the license of bar says so, and you're distributing bar so you
> must abide by the license or infringe. If you don't like it then you can
> opt not to distribute Bar by doing so escape its requirements.
Did you read this part of the GPLv2?
> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
> a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
> the scope of this License.
Since both the kernel and glibc are under the GPLv2 here, your hypothetical considerations about licenses that restrict bundling are irrelevant. The OP is correct.
P.S. Not everything that companies try to throw into EULAs and software licenses is legally binding. I think a judge would probably disagree with you that requiring the user to uninstall an unrelated piece of software to use your software was "perfectly reasonable." Otherwise, Microsoft, IBM, and others would have used this tactic already.