Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: mushrooomprince on 15 October 2003, 02:41
-
Just a simple question, a simple answer would be nice.
-
No one, and everyone :D
-
If I were to break the license agreement (http://calyptos.com/copying.txt) who would sue me?
-
seems my link answered my question. in the first paragraph it says linus and others have copyrighted it, they'd have to be the ones to protect it... so linus and those who wrote it own it. so... I guess a lot of people own pieces of it.
[ October 14, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]
-
quote:
n 1991 Finnish college student Linus Torvalds created an operating system for his own use that used cheap PC hardware but provided the same capabilities as the expensive Unix systems he used at college. He made the new OS available on the Internet with source code, and protected it with a special license that allowed others to improve the software as long as the code remained visible and modifiable. In other words, open.
http://www.redhat.com/about/mission/linux.html (http://www.redhat.com/about/mission/linux.html)
-
I agree, it is open. But still owned. Glad you got your answer.
-
quote:
In 1991 Finnish college student Linus Torvalds created an operating system
No he didn't. He created a kernel.
And if "Every revolution was first a thought in one man's mind" then that man was Stallman, not Torvalds.
-
That document that you have stryker is a GPL. It means that the code is under the GNU GPL liscence, that means that the code is open source and free, and anybody else can use it. If you use it though, you have to make the parts of your program that use the open code also open source
-
No, you have to distribute your *entire program* under the same licence, not just the parts that use GPL code.
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
That document that you have stryker is a GPL. It means that the code is under the GNU GPL liscence, that means that the code is open source and free, and anybody else can use it. If you use it though, you have to make the parts of your program that use the open code also open source
you act like i dont know that, i've never argued that... i'm just saying that linux is owned.
(we had a debate earlier about wether or not linux was owned or not)
-
stallman wouldn't have had shit without Linus making an OS kernel
-
quote:
Originally posted by Darth Jimmy James:
stallman wouldn't have had shit without Linus making an OS kernel
How about Hurd, or Like Debian is trying an Open BSD kernel with Debians version of GNU.
GNU is more important because it can use any number of kernels.
-
Why don't we just leave it as the community owns it? Or shares, it's not really owned. You can't steal it, because you already have it. It's yours, and everyone else's. Who owns an art form? It's true that people create certain pieces and are recognized for their work, but they're all just contributing to art as a whole. This is one of those questions where the easiest thing to do is come up with a new word or phrase . . . like Free Software . . .
-
it can be left at that, but technically it's owned... that's what our debate was about earlier. I was being technical and he was following some article he read on some website.
-
if by GNU, you mean all the UNIX crap... >yawn<
the Linux kernel is so better than that. why can't you guys ditch the tired old crap and move on?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Darth Jimmy James:
if by GNU, you mean all the UNIX crap... >yawn<
the Linux kernel is so better than that. why can't you guys ditch the tired old crap and move on?
what are you talking about?
-
Who owns Linux?
Why SCO, of course!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Who owns Linux?
Why SCO, of course!
they can't prove it though
-
Linux is a Trademark of Linus Torvalds
which means he could sue SCO for Slander.
-
Linux isnt really owned by anyone, however the fork that everybody is using is controlled by Linus, however if he was to be paid by Bill Gates to close all the code any person could get his most recent GPLed fork and keep developing it.
So nobody really owns Linux, Linus owns the name with Trademark laws, but nothing in the GPL says you cant change the name.
I suggest you goto www.gnu.org (http://www.gnu.org) and read these
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html)
-
quote:
stallman wouldn't have had shit without Linus making an OS kernel
There's a number of alternative kernels that could be, and are, used to create variants of the GNU system, so that isn't true. And actually it's Linus who wouldn't have had shit without GNU existing, partiularly since the code provided by GNU was a lot more than is in Linux.
quote:
if by GNU, you mean all the UNIX crap... >yawn<
What, "UNIX crap" as in 'the operating system'? Yeah, I don't even know why they bother putting that bit in. It just takes up disk space.
quote:
the Linux kernel is so better than that.
I doubt even _you_ know what you mean by that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
No he didn't. He created a kernel.
Yes he did.
Even before Linux 1.x and before he got in contact with GNU, Torvalds could already run some small Mimix apps on his kernel.
That does make it an OS.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
it is open. But still owned
If Linus didn't own Linux, it coudn't remain Open Source.
Any other person could copyright it, own it, and close its source... ;)
-
quote:
Even before Linux 1.x and before he got in contact with GNU, Torvalds could already run some small Mimix apps on his kernel.
That does make it an OS.
So what? If he put bits on the Minix system together with his kernel, that doesn't mean he wrote them. All he wrote was a kernel.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
So what? If he put bits on the Minix system together with his kernel, that doesn't mean he wrote them. All he wrote was a kernel.
He did wrote some apps (for testing).
How useless this may be, that does make it an OS(but not GNU/Linux).
GNU made the first usefull apps (But not everything!).
[ October 15, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
I think that the question wasn't very specific in the first place.
"Who owns linux? "
does that mean who owns the linux kernel, or who owns the trademark linux ? Its very confusing, however i feel that it is clear now that no one really owns linux "itself", because you can't steel it and you can make changes to it. Not only that, you could make copy's and give it to all your friends and that would be perfectly legal. But the only thing you can't seem to do is making something that isn't linux and call it "linux".