[SOLVED] Apple to buy ...

[Philo1]

I really had no idea where to post this thread, however I thought this location would be best. With that said, I have heard quite a few rumors about how Apple is trying to poise themselves to purchase Linux. One, I have no clue as to how this would be possible as the kernel was developed/released under GNU. My goal is to get confirmation that this is nothing more than a fallacy. I loathe broken windows and care nothing about sour apples. Finding Linux and getting into it has been absolutely wonderful. I would be pissed beyond words if it were taken away, it's fantastic! I urge everyone I meet to give it a try. It just doesn't make sense, thanks ahead of time for your feedback.

[koffeinöverdos]

Doesn't even sound possible. Thanks for the nightmares though. :(

[phrostbyte]

You can't buy Linux.

[Philo1]

I work within IT for the govt and a lot of our cisco boxes utilize Linux. I've heard this from people within different sectors. I'm not trying to cause a stir or "nightmares", that's the reason I posted it, it pisses me off to even think of it. Again, it flat out doesn't make any sense.

[Islington]

...I have heard quite a few rumors about how Apple is trying to poise themselves to purchase Linux.
[needs citation]

[Dharmachakra]

[needs citation]

How does one cite rumors they've heard?

And, to me, this sounds impossible.

[Philo1]

[needs citation]
I was unable to find any concrete information from anywhere such as the web. I've heard this from vendors (HP, Cisco, Dell) and such, that's it. The only thing I've found which has a hint of this is people more or less juggling the idea around. So, as of the moment I cannot find any article or news release pertaining to this. I wanted to simply find out if it was even possible as it doesn't seem so. Sorry for the lack of clarification and thanks for pointing it out.

[chucky chuckaluck]

post cancelled (too dumb, even for me).

[mips]

Absolute nonsense.

This is going to grow into one of those 10 000 post threads posted on digg and people are going to laugh.

[Frak]

You can't buy Linux.
They can buy rights to the Linux kernel from Torvalds and close source it from there. Though, I see no reason why they would do that. I mean, it would be easier to buy rights to the Linux kernel than the BSD kernel (the BSD kernel is owned by hundreds of independent parties), but they can already close source the XNU kernel (the Mac OS X kernel), because it is allowed by the BSD license.

Again, why would Apple want Linux or GNU anyways?

[Philo1]

I really appreciate your response. In the scheme of things, the only reason I could even imagine that Apple would consider doing such a thing would be for market share purposes.

[MikeTheC]

Well, Apple cannot "buy" Linux (or, if we're being very proper, "GNU/Linux") because it is essentially a collectivist platform. Apple would have to approach every single person who has a copyright and a GPL license and get them to go along with it. This would also require the abandonment of the very notion of both the GPL and F/OSS, and frankly that's not very likely, given the makeup of the people specifically involved in it.

Bottom line: Linux will be acquired by Apple the same day that RMS and/or Linus Torvalds kiss Steve Jobs' ring.

[Philo1]

Absolute nonsense.

This is going to grow into one of those 10 000 post threads posted on digg and people are going to laugh.

That is fine if they do, however this isn't my intention. If you think it is silly, why not bypass the thread instead of poking fun at it, or at least respond that it isn't quite possible for this to occur and why. It's a legitimate question which I wanted to post to the community for their perspective. It's certainly not meant to be absolute nonsense.

[forrestcupp]

Well, Apple cannot "buy" Linux (or, if we're being very proper, "GNU/Linux") because it is essentially a collectivist platform. Apple would have to approach every single person who has a copyright and a GPL license and get them to go along with it. This would also require the abandonment of the very notion of both the GPL and F/OSS, and frankly that's not very likely, given the makeup of the people specifically involved in it.Exactly! Who would they pay?


They can buy rights to the Linux kernel from Torvalds and close source it from there. Though, I see no reason why they would do that. I mean, it would be easier to buy rights to the Linux kernel than the BSD kernel (the BSD kernel is owned by hundreds of independent parties), but they can already close source the XNU kernel (the Mac OS X kernel), because it is allowed by the BSD license.
They could buy the rights to the kernel, but it's impossible to "close source" something that is already licensed under the GPL. The only thing they could do is release the next version as closed source. So then, people would just fork the final free version of the kernel and continue it as a Free kernel.

[andamaru]

You can't buy Linux.

you buy the trademark...

EDIT: Looks like I was too slow, Forretcupp beat me

I don't even think you can close it, once you GPL something it's stuck. Unless every patch submitted was given to Linus.

[Frak]

They could buy the rights to the kernel, but it's impossible to "close source" something that is already licensed under the GPL. The only thing they could do is release the next version as closed source. So then, people would just fork the final free version of the kernel and continue it as a Free kernel.

You know what I mean :rolleyes:

[Philo1]

Thanks, I appreciate those which contributed to this question.

[mamamia88]

you really think torvalds would sell the liscense?

[MikeTheC]

you really think torvalds would sell the liscense?

Unlikely. He faced the potential of profiting big-time back about 1997-8ish time frame when we had that huge dot com bubble and "goings-public" of several distros, etc., and yet he made not Dollar 1 from any of that by his own choice. Doubtless he would not bite if it were Microsoft offering the cash. It's not that he is necessarily as big of a Microsoft-hater as many on this forum (myself included), but for the very practical reason that he has come to learn first hand of the value in software being open-sourced. He's also said publicly that he supports the concept of the GPL (even though he doesn't support GPLv3 specifically).

Also, there are any of a myriad of major corporations who think F/OSS is pretty darned spiffy and would likely be recalcitrant to participate in anything which were to see it's demise.

[xarte]

It seems to me that once something is open source, it stays open source - I mean, if Apple bought the rights and went off and did something closed-source with it, all the other projects done on the open source linux would HAVE to stay open.

Apple might buy into Linux and do something with it, but it can't possibly have any effect on the rest of the linux world.

If the linux kernel was sold to Apple in entirety, then future updates would be in the control of Apple, but updates done on the existing kernel by other people would have to belong to them.

I think.

Imagine if I publish an open licence photograph. Hundreds of artists go off an make paintings based on that photo. Some of the paintings get put on mugs and T-Shirts. I then sell all my rights to that photo to somebody. I can no longer publish it or do anything with it. But can they go and claim ownership of all those paintings and coffee mugs? No, I don't think so.

[Kernel Sanders]

Impossible, the kernel is GPL'd, so the only thing Apple could do is but the name "Linux" from Torvalds.

Kind of pointless for them even to do that though, as we can just rename the kernal "Ubuntu Core" or whatever name anyone wants to give it, and then carry on as normal, leaving Apple with the "linux" name that is then meaningless.

Even if it were somehow magically possible for Apple to buy Linux in it's entirity, the current core is still GPL'd, so we could just fork the kernel and everything would continue as normal.

Either way Apple lose. 100% bogus, and you can quote me on this.

[Frak]

Impossible, the kernel is GPL'd, so the only thing Apple could do is but the name "Linux" from Torvalds.

GPL != Public Domain. Any piece of software licensed under the GPL is still owned by the person(s) that created it.

[wmcbrine]

GPL != Public Domain. Any piece of software licensed under the GPL is still owned by the person(s) that created it....which is, again, not (just) Linus Torvalds. He probably owns the largest single share of it, but not the majority. At this point, there is simply no way for anyone to "buy" Linux.

Apple could of course adopt (i.e., use) Linux, in place of their existing BSD/Mach base. But that's not going to happen, either.

The fact is, the command-line environment in Mac OS X, out of the box, is already as Linux-like as any Unix system I've used. It's a very comfortable place.

[Kernel Sanders]

GPL != Public Domain. Any piece of software licensed under the GPL is still owned by the person(s) that created it.

Indeed, but the GPL allows you to take the current kernel and then do what you want with it. So if Apple did try to buy Linux, forking the kernel and renaming it to "ubuntu core" would be easy, and everything would carry on as it always has.

[Frak]

...which is, again, not (just) Linus Torvalds. He probably owns the largest single share of it, but not the majority. At this point, there is simply no way for anyone to "buy" Linux.

Apple could of course adopt (i.e., use) Linux, in place of their existing BSD/Mach base. But that's not going to happen, either.

The fact is, the command-line environment in Mac OS X, out of the box, is already as Linux-like as any Unix system I've used. It's a very comfortable place.
Linus Torvalds owns every and all changes to the Linux kernel. He holds the power to sell it off to anybody.

[saulgoode]

Linus Torvalds owns every and all changes to the Linux kernel. He holds the power to sell it off to anybody.
Not true.

There is a requirement that code incorporated in the kernel use licensing compatible with GPL version 2, but there is no requirement to assign copyright to Linus. Contributors retain the copyrights to the code they contribute. The Linux kernel has hundreds of different copyright holders -- and Linus Torvalds only holds the copyrights on about 3% of the current codebase.

[Philo1]

Wow, this has proven to very interesting as I have learnt some things which I didn't know. It seems plausible that the kernel would live on in some manner. My thought was that if it were, being that it can be sold. Someone such as this would buy it just too more or less close it out. In the event that it wasn't closed out, it may become a proprietary setup which is just as bad in my opinion. That word holds such a dreary connotation. As far as ownership, I thought it 100% went toward Linus, thus giving him the right to sell as Frak mentioned.

Good point mentioned on that during the .com boom, (MikeTheC) he could have reaped an excellent return, but chose not to. This further leads me to agree that if (speculative) he has 100% ownership of it, then he has no desire to sell. Saulgood has a good point as well but I have no clue as to which is entirely correct. This exact info is listed in Wiki but it states he owns 2%, but has the ultimate authority as what is incorporated into the kernel.

Per Linux online ( http://www.linux.org/news/2007/05/22/0007.html ) it states that Rosch, a detergent company in Switzerland as well owns the trademark of Linux as well. That sounds very outlandish, but I've found some really good information on this site in the past. However everything I find points to the community as owning the kernel but nothing to concrete in this matter.

[wmcbrine]

As far as ownership, I thought it 100% went toward LinusWhere do people get this bizarre idea? :confused: I suppose they're thinking of the trademark?


This exact info is listed in Wiki but it states he owns 2%, but has the ultimate authority as what is incorporated into the kernel....because he's the maintainer, yes. But that has nothing to do with ownership. In fact it's purely a de facto position, with no legal status.

[Delever]

Like Linus says, "if you don't like Linux, fork it!".

In case name is bought and buyer screws up (loose-loose situation), it can be simply renamed and continue to power everything as before.

[mips]

...which is, again, not (just) Linus Torvalds. He probably owns the largest single share of it, but not the majority.



It's claimed his contribution is 2% of the code. You have to keep in mind how many people contribute to the kernel.
http://www.bellevuelinux.org/linus.html

[bufsabre666]

if you buyin im sellin, if they want to buy a copy ill sell it to them

[forrestcupp]

GPL != Public Domain. Any piece of software licensed under the GPL is still owned by the person(s) that created it.

Once someone slaps a GPL license on the software, even the creator can't change it. It's free for anyone to do whatever they like with it as long as they follow the GPL rules. If the Benevolent Dictator for Life wants to change the license, he needs to wait until the next version is ready and release it under the new license.

[TBOL3]

Umm... No, I don't need to wait until the next version.

I can release MyApp 3.2, under the GPL, and then release MyApp 3.2 under the My Proprietary License. Sure, it doesn't get rid of the GPLed code, and if someone still has it, they can still distribute it, but that doesn't stop me from re-releasing it.

Now, if YourApp 4.2 is released under the GPL, I couldn't release it under any other license (except a later version of the GPL), because it's your code.

The GPL != public domain. The closest thing the GPL is to is the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike license.