I have written four comments here regarding this (five when I send this one). How many have you written? I won’t argue over this any further. It’s not worth the time, for both of us.

Are our definitions of “free” not the same? The way I think of “free” implies that, if the cost of a CPU/RAM/operating system is added to the overall cost of a device, that CPU/RAM/operating system is not free. You are paying for it.

Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free

You’re right, because you didn’t read my comment carefully. I wrote, clearly, that Linux is funded. That’s where the money for its development comes from.

Linux’s license means Google can’t close Android’s source and make manufacturers pay for it, it has other ways to profit from Android.

Windows is paid.

Every major operating system has some way to obtain money for its development. The most logical thing for Apple is to add macOS’s cost to the price of Mac devices. Given this definition of not-free, the probability of macOS not being free is higher.

Linux has an entirely different story.

The Linux Kernel Organization is managed by The Linux Foundation, which provides full technical, financial and staffing support for running and maintaining the kernel.org infrastructure.

Funding for the Linux Foundation comes primarily from its Platinum Members, who pay US$500,000 per year according to Schedule A in LF’s bylaws, adding up to US$7.5 million. The Gold Members contribute a combined total of US$1.2 million and Silver members contribute between US$5,000 and US$20,000 based on the amount of employees, summing up to at least US$6,240,000.

You can also donate to them.

But what about Android? Android is definitely not paid.

Android is based on the Linux kernel, which uses the GPL license.

If you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL.

Therefore, Google cannot close Android’s source code, and force manufacturers to pay for it.

When you buy an Android phone, however, there are some closed-sourced components installed on them: Google Play Services, YouTube, …, which Google can profit from.

In its earnings reports, the company combines revenue from multiple sources, under the sub-heading “Google Services”. This includes income from Android, Chrome, Maps, and hardware (like Pixel and Nest smart home devices). In the first quarter of 2022, this “services” division brought in $6.8 billion in revenue for the company. … Oracle’s attorneys estimated that Android had generated a total of $31 billion in revenue and $22 billion in profit.

So Google does profit from Android. It’s free, but Google definitely generates enough to develop Android.

Apple’s situation is different from Google’s. It is the sole maker of devices that run macOS, and macOS is close-sourced. It can add a price to each macOS device sold for macOS development. It would be illogical for Apple not to do this, and use the profit brought by the sale of other devices. Therefore, there’s a high probability you’re also paying for macOS when buying a Mac device.

The arguments were provided by others, I simply stated what I observed. You are right that Apple doesn’t make you pay for macOS separately, but in my opinion, it’s like saying that Apple processors are free because you don’t pay for them when you buy a Macbook. You also don’t pay for Windows separately when you buy a Windows laptop, you know, but the manufacturer is paying for Windows which is added to the overall cost of the laptop.

MacOS developers have an income, and where does that income come from?

Floo: Do you think I’m acting in bad faith because I acknowledge a fact, and you won’t?

Ah, yes. Projection.

It’s amusing that you’re accusing me of what you’re doing.

It’s extremely amusing that you’re accusing others of accusing you of doing what they’re doing, while in fact you’re accusing others of doing what you’re doing.