Linux Video about ownership

[Midevil Chaos]

According to this below video from Linus, I could modify Linux. So, couldn't I theoretically modify Mac OS and claim I was modifying it under the Linux GNU? I heard that Ubuntu is similar to Mac OS and vice versa (hence my question). I have never used Mac, and only used Ubuntu once, so I wouldn't know how different they truly are from each other. But still, seems to me that I should be able to modify Mac OS if I wanted to (not that I want to, since I hate Mac anyhow).
 

 

[Trinopoty]

MacOS is not released under GPL and so you can't modify that. You don't even have the source code for MacOS.

You can modify Linux all you like but you are legally obligated to open source any modifications under the GPL (if the thing you're modifying is under the GPL).

[Midevil Chaos]

Just now, Trinopoty said:

MacOS is not released under GPL and so you can't modify that. You don't even have the source code for MacOS.

You can modify Linux all you like but you are legally obligated to open source any modifications under the GPL (if the thing you're modifying is under the GPL).

Sure, but wasn't Linus saying that you would need to release it under the GNU licence? If so, isn't Apple obligated to have done the same?

[Trinopoty]

 

1 minute ago, Midevil Chaos said:

Sure, but wasn't Linus saying that you would need to release it under the GNU licence? If so, isn't Apple obligated to have done the same?

MacOS isn't based on Linux. It's based on BSD and the BSD license allows you to make a commercial closed source variant of their OS.

[Slottr]

There's no publicly available source for MacOS.

 

Really the only thing 'tying' MacOS to Linux is that it's based on UNIX.

[Midevil Chaos]

3 minutes ago, Trinopoty said:

 

MacOS isn't based on Linux. It's based on BSD and the BSD license allows you to make a commercial closed source variant of their OS.

I am aware, but isn't BSD based on Unix, like Linux? Ahah, as Slottr was typing at the same time as me about the Unix part. 

I feel that MacOS is very similar to Linux imo. I find it fishy that Apple has a product that, imo, is very similar to a GNU licensed product.

[greenmax]

Just now, Midevil Chaos said:

I find it fishy that Apple has a product that, imo, is similar to a GNU licensed product.

Hey they are making a ton of million$ off it

 

Cant blame them

....or can you hmmmmmm

 

[Roswell]

14 minutes ago, Trinopoty said:

MacOS is not released under GPL and so you can't modify that. You don't even have the source code for MacOS.

You can modify Linux all you like but you are legally obligated to open source any modifications under the GPL (if the thing you're modifying is under the GPL).

 

10 minutes ago, Slottr said:

There's no publicly available source for MacOS.

 

Really the only thing 'tying' MacOS to Linux is that it's based on UNIX.

MacOS's source is available and under their APSL open license (a lot of it falls under GPL too), the interface, among other things isn't.

[Midevil Chaos]

1 minute ago, Vitamanic said:

 

MacOS's source is available and open source, the interface, among other things isn't.

I was wondering about that, since I know some people created the hackingtosh version... which you would assume they needed the code for that lol.

[Trinopoty]

Just now, Midevil Chaos said:

I am aware, but isn't BSD based on Unix, like Linux? Ahah, as Slottr was typing at the same time as me about the Unix part. 

I feel that MacOS is very similar to Linux imo. I find it fishy that Apple has a product that, imo, is very similar to a GNU licensed product.

UNIX was the first to the game. Modern UNIX variants are BSD (open source) and a lot of commercial OSs.

Linux is not Unix. It takes a lot of ideas from Unix but it's not Unix whereas BSD is.

Also, the BSD license allows you to do 'whatever' you want. Even you can make a different OS and close source it and sell it.

[Midevil Chaos]

2 minutes ago, Trinopoty said:

UNIX was the first to the game. Modern UNIX variants are BSD (open source) and a lot of commercial OSs.

Linux is not Unix. It takes a lot of ideas from Unix but it's not Unix whereas BSD is.

Also, the BSD license allows you to do 'whatever' you want. Even you can make a different OS and close source it and sell it.

See, that makes sense.

[greenmax]

Whats the company that used to sell Linux os, something hat. You could literally say you own that, because you paid for it. That was like 20 yrs ago though, something hat, black hat, red hat, I cant remember.

[Midevil Chaos]

Just now, greenmax said:

Whats the company that used to sell Linux os, something hat. You could literally say you own that, because you paid for it. That was like 20 yrs ago though, something hat, black hat, red hat, I cant remember.

Only one I know with such a name would be Redhat.

[Electronics Wizardy]

6 minutes ago, Midevil Chaos said:

I am aware, but isn't BSD based on Unix, like Linux? Ahah, as Slottr was typing at the same time as me about the Unix part. 

I feel that MacOS is very similar to Linux imo. I find it fishy that Apple has a product that, imo, is very similar to a GNU licensed product.

osx is based off darwin, and thats open source. You can run darwin on your pc if you want.

 

Its not really that simmilar, and the os isn't open source, only the kernel and some utils.

[Eigenvektor]

4 minutes ago, Midevil Chaos said:

I am aware, but isn't BSD based on Unix, like Linux?

Unix isn't open source and Linux isn't based on it. It is "inspired" by it, meaning it is similar/compatible in many ways but it doesn't share any source code with it.

Quote

I feel that MacOS is very similar to Linux imo. I find it fishy that Apple has a product that, imo, is very similar to a GNU licensed product.

Strictly speaking Linux is just the kernel, that you can combine with tons of different shells and GUIs... not sure where exactly you see the similarities? I mean yes, macOS has a shell (zsh/bash), but that's about it?

 

Also... GNU is short for "GNU is Not Unix"

[greenmax]

1 minute ago, Midevil Chaos said:

Only one I know with such a name would be Redhat.

Damn I was right on!

 

Yeah you paid for the Linux o/s, but I cant remember the price point, or the advantages/dis over the free versions.

 

But the title of the thread, who owns Linux. Well the customer owns it that paid for it, owns a copy.

 

Otherwise its the people that own it, everyone owns it.

[Midevil Chaos]

1 minute ago, greenmax said:

Damn I was right on!

 

Yeah you paid for the Linux o/s, but I cant remember the price point, or the advantages/dis over the free versions.

 

But the title of the thread, who owns Linux. Well the customer owns it that paid for it, owns a copy.

 

Otherwise its the people that own it, everyone owns it.

Linus for everyone! I mean, Linux for everyone!

[Eigenvektor]

Just now, greenmax said:

Damn I was right on!

 

Yeah you paid for the Linux o/s, but I cant remember the price point, or the advantages/dis over the free versions.

 

But the title of the thread, who owns Linux. Well the customer owns it that paid for it, owns a copy.

 

Otherwise its the people that own it, everyone owns it.

Except you don't really pay for the OS, you pay for commercial support and some enterprise extension on top of the OS.  And as always, when it comes to software, you own a license (to use it) not the software as such. That is still owned by whoever created it.

[Midevil Chaos]

15 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Except you don't really pay for the OS, you pay for commercial support and some enterprise extension on top of the OS.  And as always, when it comes to software, you own a license (to use it) not the software as such. That is still owned by whoever created it.

True, except that you can buy an actual physical copy of some Linux distros. You technically can pay for Linux if you want. Or just download it.

[harryk]

Here's a handy chart of the evolution of Unix

 

[LogicalDrm]

 

13 hours ago, greenmax said:

Damn I was right on!

 

Yeah you paid for the Linux o/s, but I cant remember the price point, or the advantages/dis over the free versions.

 

You really don't pay for OS. You pay for install package and technical support. You could probably build similar package yourself. Except if RedHat uses in-house made stuff. RedHat and other services based on open-source are focusing giving business and enterprice customers full service. Its actually not that different from what companies that distribute Dell, HP, Microsoft and other more closed company products. RH just doesn't have to pay license fees.

 

13 hours ago, greenmax said:

But the title of the thread, who owns Linux. Well the customer owns it that paid for it, owns a copy.

 

Otherwise its the people that own it, everyone owns it.

 

Uh... I have no idea what you are after with this one. The Linux brand is owned by Linux Foundation (non-profit). As you don't buy Linux OS, you don't really own it. Actually, you don't really own Windows either. You own Apple device and since OS is bound to it, you own that.

 

12 hours ago, Midevil Chaos said:

True, except that you can buy an actual physical copy of some Linux distros. You technically can pay for Linux if you want. Or just download it.

 

You pay for shipping only. And last time I ordered install CDs, they would send 5 pieces for free (postage is cheap). So I wouldn't call it buying/paying anyone. Its more about donating to developing team if you like what they do.