There’s no formal relationship. This is just using the open source base of macOS. Basically the UNIX part.
It is interesting from a nerdy perspective but it’s usefulness is limited since you can’t actually run any of macOS’s desktop software. However it does (or at least did back in the earlier days of macOS) provide a counter argument to the backlash Apple received about their use of open source code in a proprietary OS. But there’s a multitude of perspectives on this matter, each just as valid as the last.
>But there’s a multitude of perspectives on this matter, each just as valid as the last.
this is called in some circumstances "universalism" .. since this is software license law, commerce and legal ethics, there is no application for "universalism" here other than an elaborate way to avoid thinking
Eh, not really. Legal arguments tend to be _valid_ but that doesn't make them _right_ or how we _ought_ to live. Valid defines ways we _can_ live. They aren't against natural laws, self-contradictory etc. Taking something under MIT, forking it, adding a feature and then selling it is _valid_ but that isn't how an actor _ought_ behave.
It is interesting from a nerdy perspective but it’s usefulness is limited since you can’t actually run any of macOS’s desktop software. However it does (or at least did back in the earlier days of macOS) provide a counter argument to the backlash Apple received about their use of open source code in a proprietary OS. But there’s a multitude of perspectives on this matter, each just as valid as the last.