Here's a thought.....

B

blackneos940

Guest
If I take the Linux Kernel, which is OPEN Source, and modify it, to the point where all those int's and #include's and other things are different, while a certain portion OF said Kernel remains intact..... Am I able to make it CLOSED Source.....? :\ (Not that I would ever whiz on the end-user like that... EVERYTHING I do is FOSS..... :)) So.... What do you guys think.....? :)
 


That's what Apple and Microsoft did. They yell, 'We made this, we invented that!' but many their technologies were borrowed from open-source and less known companies. This can be a problem for original inventors. It's roughly I think.
For example, OSX kernel contains a number of open source technologies included in Mach and XNU, they are closely related to BSD. Since OSX kernel is mostly closed source, no one except for developers can tell us exactly what is it.
 
The Linux kernel is released under the GL v2, so you can modify it as you wish, but any changes would need to be released also under the GPL v2.
Am I able to make it CLOSED Source.....? :\ (Not that I would ever whiz on the end-user like that...
Click to expand...
IANAL, but I would think that you could not legally make the kernel "Closed Source". That is a good thing! ;^)

You should be able to build a closed source O/S around the Open Source kernel, however.
 
Mitt Green said:
That's what Apple and Microsoft did. They yell, 'We made this, we invented that!' but many their technologies were borrowed from open-source and less known companies. This can be a problem for original inventors. It's roughly I think.
For example, OSX kernel contains a number of open source technologies included in Mach and XNU, they are closely related to BSD. Since OSX kernel is mostly closed source, no one except for developers can tell us exactly what is it.
Click to expand...

Apple's Darwin is based on a BSD license - you can include that in closed source products, as long as you include a copyright notice (and a few other minor terms). It's why large companies like BSD-type licenses.

Linux is GPL (specifically v2). GPL is based on a whole different notion of open source. There have been long and bitter religious wars fought over the two different approaches to licensing. I'm not going to join the crusade here. Each has it's place, it's strong points, and it's weak points. I'll just say that Richard Stallman (parent of the GPL) is quite an interesting fellow.
 
Wasn't the PlayStation 4 done this way off of Freebsd?
 
Mitt Green said:
That's what Apple and Microsoft did. They yell, 'We made this, we invented that!' but many their technologies were borrowed from open-source and less known companies. This can be a problem for original inventors. It's roughly I think.
For example, OSX kernel contains a number of open source technologies included in Mach and XNU, they are closely related to BSD. Since OSX kernel is mostly closed source, no one except for developers can tell us exactly what is it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not surprised about that....... :/ Ah, so Apple DOES have us to thank for OSX's security..... :3 But if the Devs tell us the dirty secrets of MACH, will they be hunted down and, God forbid..... Killed....?? o_O
 
rstanley said:
The Linux kernel is released under the GL v2, so you can modify it as you wish, but any changes would need to be released also under the GPL v2.

IANAL, but I would think that you could not legally make the kernel "Closed Source". That is a good thing! ;^)

You should be able to build a closed source O/S around the Open Source kernel, however.
Click to expand...

I thought so..... :) But is Android FOSS.......? Also, it IS a good thing that one can't restrict the Kernel like that..... :) *Phew*....... :D
 
blackneos940 said:
I thought so..... :) But is Android FOSS.......? Also, it IS a good thing that one can't restrict the Kernel like that..... :) *Phew*....... :D
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. From the Android.com Website:
The Android Open Source Project uses a few open source initiative approved open source licenses for our software.
...
The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, Version 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions that will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe GPL v2 is right for the Linux Kernel. I fully trust Linus in his decisions concerning the kernel. He does have the track record!
 
blackneos940 said:
Yeah, I'm not surprised about that....... :/ Ah, so Apple DOES have us to thank for OSX's security..... :3 But if the Devs tell us the dirty secrets of MACH, will they be hunted down and, God forbid..... Killed....?? o_O
Click to expand...
OSX is unsecure comparing to Linux, BSD and other open source Unix. They have different kernel and userland, also it is mostly closed source. And don't forget about 7% market share (mean, people write viruses for something popular) comparing even with Linux' 1% and combining all these points we have "glory" holes both in kernel and userland. OSX with its philosophy is probably less Unix than Windows nowadays:p. Just kidding :D
 
blackneos940 said:
I thought so..... :) But is Android FOSS.......? Also, it IS a good thing that one can't restrict the Kernel like that..... :) *Phew*....... :D
Click to expand...

Tivo uses a Linux kernel, and you can get the sources, but you can't modify them and install them on the TIVO that you actually own. This is one of the reasons for the GPL v3.
 
Mitt Green said:
OSX is unsecure comparing to Linux, BSD and other open source Unix. They have different kernel and userland, also it is mostly closed source. And don't forget about 7% market share (mean, people write viruses for something popular) comparing even with Linux' 1% and combining all these points we have "glory" holes both in kernel and userland. OSX with its philosophy is probably less Unix than Windows nowadays:p. Just kidding :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, compared to Linux, it is..... :D But I don't really believe that whole "market-share" thing..... I mean, it may play SOME role, but to be honest, I would only write a Virus for an easy-to-target system..... :\ But as someone once said, if Google or Twitter or Facebook got hacked, it would be newsworthy..... :) Yet you never hear about it.... :D But, what are glory holes, good sir.....? :)
 
GrumpyOldMan said:
Tivo uses a Linux kernel, and you can get the sources, but you can't modify them and install them on the TIVO that you actually own. This is one of the reasons for the GPL v3.
Click to expand...

I heard about that..... So basically, TiVo broke the law.......?
 
rstanley said:
Yes, it is. From the Android.com Website:


Yes, I do believe GPL v2 is right for the Linux Kernel. I fully trust Linus in his decisions concerning the kernel. He does have the track record!
Click to expand...

Yeah..... :) I trust him too, but he's not infallible....... :D But, I need to study the GPLs more..... :\ It seems I'm not quite so knowledgeable about them..... I need to be, as a FOSS enthusiast..... :)
 
blackneos940 said:
I heard about that..... So basically, TiVo broke the law.......?
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest. TiVo still provided the sources for their modified Linux Kernel which complies with the GPL. No laws were broken.
 
@blackneos940 'glory' holes are security bugs. Both OSX and iOS are considered as buggy and, as I said, unsecure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 883 (members: 3, guests: 880)

Latest posts

Top