Who own Linux, is linus?
- Thread starter Thil.
- Start date
Terminal Velocity
Well-Known Member
As far as I know Linus Torvalds is the author and maintainer of the Linux kernel but there are many other contributors and they offer that software free to anyone. However Torvalds owns the copyright to the name Linux
This website is owned by our legendary admin Rob who is a Linux enthusiast
This website is owned by our legendary admin Rob who is a Linux enthusiast
Hello @Thil.
Welcome to Linux.org forum, enjoy the journey!
Linux is a complex beast but as far as Linux it's really the kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds, who still is the lead developer, Distros then add many parts in addition to the Kernel, Some parts of some distros my be owned by others. But for the most part it all comes under the GPL license which is open and free. So their is not a sense that some actually owns it.
Welcome to Linux.org forum, enjoy the journey!
Linux is a complex beast but as far as Linux it's really the kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds, who still is the lead developer, Distros then add many parts in addition to the Kernel, Some parts of some distros my be owned by others. But for the most part it all comes under the GPL license which is open and free. So their is not a sense that some actually owns it.
Brickwizard
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the forums,
Linux is the core [Kernel] of the operating system commonly called Linux, developed by Linus Torvalds,
"Who owns the copyright on Linux? Lots of people. Nearly
everyone who has contributed code to Linux reserved his own
copyright. Some of that work was done for hire and therefore
the employing corporations own the copyright. Linus Torvalds
is the most visible copyright owner, but he hold copyright on
a very small part of Linux."
Linux as its commonly referred to is a distribution built and developed around the Kernel consisting of the kernel, a collection of applications [Windows users call them programs] and a GUI [user interface] of which there are thousands of variants including over 500 desktop versions.
Linux.org is an independent help and advice site founded by our own @Rob, it had grown over the years to become the biggest independent site of its type within the Linux community, and are looked upon by many as the primary source of help and advice, even to the point we are mentioned by windows in their blogs.
We the members all are voluntary and freely give our time and knowledge to advance the use of Linux distributions, Not one of us is an expert in all things Linux but between us we have experience/expertise in running Linux distributions from hardware maintenance to programming and Pen-testing.
Linux is the core [Kernel] of the operating system commonly called Linux, developed by Linus Torvalds,
"Who owns the copyright on Linux? Lots of people. Nearly
everyone who has contributed code to Linux reserved his own
copyright. Some of that work was done for hire and therefore
the employing corporations own the copyright. Linus Torvalds
is the most visible copyright owner, but he hold copyright on
a very small part of Linux."
Linux as its commonly referred to is a distribution built and developed around the Kernel consisting of the kernel, a collection of applications [Windows users call them programs] and a GUI [user interface] of which there are thousands of variants including over 500 desktop versions.
Linux.org is an independent help and advice site founded by our own @Rob, it had grown over the years to become the biggest independent site of its type within the Linux community, and are looked upon by many as the primary source of help and advice, even to the point we are mentioned by windows in their blogs.
We the members all are voluntary and freely give our time and knowledge to advance the use of Linux distributions, Not one of us is an expert in all things Linux but between us we have experience/expertise in running Linux distributions from hardware maintenance to programming and Pen-testing.
Last edited:
Nobody OWNS Linux. Not in the same way as Microsoft "owns" Windows, or Apple "owns" MacOS.
As others have stated above, the only real copyright that matters in the context of THIS question is that Linus Torvalds "owns" the rights to the name 'Linux'. But nobody "owns" the various operating systems that are built making use of the Linux kernel. Most are assembled using the products from 1000s of free, open-source projects, so, in a way, you COULD say that the entire human race owns Linux.....or at the very least, has unimpeded access to it, and can use it free of charge.
(There's a very long-running argument coming from the FSF - Free Software Foundation - that insists the final product should be called GNU/Linux.....courtesy of its founder, one Richard Stallman. But I'm not going there, because it's a circular argument that could run for ever if you let it....)
Mike.
As others have stated above, the only real copyright that matters in the context of THIS question is that Linus Torvalds "owns" the rights to the name 'Linux'. But nobody "owns" the various operating systems that are built making use of the Linux kernel. Most are assembled using the products from 1000s of free, open-source projects, so, in a way, you COULD say that the entire human race owns Linux.....or at the very least, has unimpeded access to it, and can use it free of charge.
(There's a very long-running argument coming from the FSF - Free Software Foundation - that insists the final product should be called GNU/Linux.....courtesy of its founder, one Richard Stallman. But I'm not going there, because it's a circular argument that could run for ever if you let it....)
Mike.
Brickwizard
Well-Known Member
Mike your taking us into the realm of, it may be made by Dyson, Meile, Hotpoint et al, but , 90% will still call it a Hoover.
The whole GPL works because it is copyrighted. That's what the GPL is based on for the law behind it.
The copyright for the Linux kernel is held by the Linux Foundation, specifically handled by the Linux Kernel Organization. A court ruling would be messy because many people have contributed to the kernel's code.
I'm not sure how legally binding it is, but you grant usage rights to the organization when you contribute code to the kernel. As far as I know, this has not been tested with the kernel itself in the US courts.
Anyhow, all of this stuff is copyright-protected. The copyright owners have made it available for some purposes - copyleft requirements, for example. (It depends on the license used, and I'm limiting this to GPL, specifically GPL2 - though all GPL enforcement would be copyright enforcement.)
So, there are owners. Copyright is automatic and granted at the moment of inception. The GPL has provisions for handing over usage rights when you modify the code. The person with the original copyright would remain in ownership.
Again, this would be quite messy. What if the original author dies, for example? It would be the property of some unknown estate until the copyright expires. As we all know, copyright can last for a long time. While the community is free to use this code, we never really own it.
Hmm... There should be some easy way to transfer copyright to the Linux Foundation, though I'm not sure if they want the overhead that'd entail. Maybe some other/new 502(c) could be created for just such a reason. Then there would be a clear copyright holder and deaths in the community would not derail the software.
Even if it was forked, there's still an original copyright holder.
In my not-a-lawyer opinion, it's not all that important. Even if there are technically copyright holders (I can delve into that more if needed, though I'm busy today), you can't really claw back the code. You don't have to make modifications under the same license as you own the software, but you can't take back something you released under the GPL. So, we really don't have to worry about the estate doing anything like that.
The copyright for the Linux kernel is held by the Linux Foundation, specifically handled by the Linux Kernel Organization. A court ruling would be messy because many people have contributed to the kernel's code.
I'm not sure how legally binding it is, but you grant usage rights to the organization when you contribute code to the kernel. As far as I know, this has not been tested with the kernel itself in the US courts.
Anyhow, all of this stuff is copyright-protected. The copyright owners have made it available for some purposes - copyleft requirements, for example. (It depends on the license used, and I'm limiting this to GPL, specifically GPL2 - though all GPL enforcement would be copyright enforcement.)
So, there are owners. Copyright is automatic and granted at the moment of inception. The GPL has provisions for handing over usage rights when you modify the code. The person with the original copyright would remain in ownership.
Again, this would be quite messy. What if the original author dies, for example? It would be the property of some unknown estate until the copyright expires. As we all know, copyright can last for a long time. While the community is free to use this code, we never really own it.
Hmm... There should be some easy way to transfer copyright to the Linux Foundation, though I'm not sure if they want the overhead that'd entail. Maybe some other/new 502(c) could be created for just such a reason. Then there would be a clear copyright holder and deaths in the community would not derail the software.
Even if it was forked, there's still an original copyright holder.
In my not-a-lawyer opinion, it's not all that important. Even if there are technically copyright holders (I can delve into that more if needed, though I'm busy today), you can't really claw back the code. You don't have to make modifications under the same license as you own the software, but you can't take back something you released under the GPL. So, we really don't have to worry about the estate doing anything like that.
It may be that bits and pieces are owned here and there. I also am not a lawyer by any means.
But I will say this, if any large corporate entity were to "buy" it, and try to own it. I would quit using it.
I know Canonical, Redhat, and Oracle all own "their unique" versions of Linux, but none of them own
Linux proper.
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as a corporate body with an agenda buys something, it's useless
for anything else.
But I will say this, if any large corporate entity were to "buy" it, and try to own it. I would quit using it.
I know Canonical, Redhat, and Oracle all own "their unique" versions of Linux, but none of them own
Linux proper.
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as a corporate body with an agenda buys something, it's useless
for anything else.
Condobloke
Well-Known Member
No. We are not the official website of Linux, we were just lucky enough to get the Linux.org name, and have the enviable reputation of being the most friendly, knowledgeable Linux oriented group on the 'net.
Welcome to Linux.org
Originally, there was the GNU software (Richard Stalman), at its conception there was no kernel, it was to be GNU Hurd, but it was taking so long that Linus Torvolds Linux kernel got 'married' to the GNU utilities, & hence we had GNU/Linux, which became generally known as 'Linux', but without the GNU utilities, we wouldn't have a complete operating system. The name was contended for many years, but, for most people, it was shortened to just 'Linux', & that is what we call it today.
Huh... I managed to quote on my phone.
I think I would still use Linux because I prefer it. It's not a morals thing for me, just a matter of preference. There are some good BSD choices but I am pretty sure that someone would effectively fork the kernel.
It's 'effectively' that's important. I'm sure someone would.
Just a little clarification, on linux.org, particularly with
linux.org was founded by one Michael McLagan back in 1994, and there was some controversy in 1998 which you can read about here (note that the links are dead now)
http://web.mit.edu/pmitros/www/lsa/comspam.html
You can also read this from 2012
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2723710/linux-org-comes-back-to-life.html
and Rob Kennedy has been at the helm since at least that time. Prior to that, he had the Linux-Howto.com web site (that is a dead link).
I came on board in July 2014, but show as 1 May 2017, because 23 April 2017 Rob engineered a major site software revision which required previous Members to rejoin.
Cheers
Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
linux.org was founded by one Michael McLagan back in 1994, and there was some controversy in 1998 which you can read about here (note that the links are dead now)
http://web.mit.edu/pmitros/www/lsa/comspam.html
You can also read this from 2012
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2723710/linux-org-comes-back-to-life.html
and Rob Kennedy has been at the helm since at least that time. Prior to that, he had the Linux-Howto.com web site (that is a dead link).
I came on board in July 2014, but show as 1 May 2017, because 23 April 2017 Rob engineered a major site software revision which required previous Members to rejoin.
Cheers
Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
Brickwizard
Well-Known Member
Apologies, to the original founder, as a user of Linux org for many years before joining, Rob seems to have been at the helm.
So there
