Is Slackware Completely Free Software?
 

Just curious about this fact. I checked http://slackware.com/info/ and did a forum search.

It's completely free in that you can download it no fee, but if you want to save yourself the bandwidth, you can pay $60 USD for a DVD or CD set.

If you mean free as in open-source, no. Well, the installer and all that jazz - the absolute hand-written internals of Slackware are open-source, but it includes some non-free (non-open source) applications, like Firefox, in its default install.

EDIT: That URL you posted is slightly out of date, even though it's on the official Slackware site. It stipulates in the last block that it runs on the 2.4 kernel, when - in fact - Slackware 12.0 was the pivotal version that switched to the 2.6 kernel.

Firefox is an open-source package but is usually compiled by its developers and then is given for everybody.
I wonder if building it by ourselves would be more complicated than compiling Vlc along with all deps as I did some months ago :)

What is not opensource about FF (except the brand...)?

Mozilla Firefox is OpenSource. The fact that Open Source does not equals to Free Software.

More than that, the Software to be free should be GPL v.3, not less than that.

I haven't checked all the packages, but so far all the ones I've seen are FLOSS. Note that it doesn't have to be under GPL to be FLOSS.

HPLIP?
Xv certainly not.
And several drivers included in the Linux kernel are closed source.

Think again ;)

And so I did. :)
And Google'ed a bit...
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/20...-drivers-.html
http://www.linux.com/articles/35692
I don't know how the actual status at the moment is, but I was sure I read about it on several sites.

My thought when I posted this thread was free as in freedom.

Any ideas on the packages I have to remove to make the entire thing free? I know Debian uses IceWeasel to get around the Firefox issue.

Hi,
The links you provided speak of the API and tainted drivers. This is in reference to the use of closed source binary drivers. The API will allow the use of a binary driver with the Linux Kernel. The second link just speaks of binary drivers that cause a problem as being tainted and how a user should handle the issue.

Look at NDISWRAPPER and how we get some hardware to work using M$ drivers for the Linux kernel.

Like I said, xv (which I use quite often) certainly is not opensource, probably some others too. HPLIP is opensource, so I reed: http://hplip.sourceforge.net/about.html
The Debian way of handling FF/IceWeasel is "much ado about nothing", IMHO.

@ Onebuck: thanks for pointing that out.

Funny thing is: the forum software on LinuxQuestions.org is not open source either. :)

Xv is definitely closed-source, but I think most people could safely remove it now that there are suitable alternatives, even installed in Slackware by default. ImageMagick does most of what Xv can do (if you're just using Xv to display pictures and nothing else you can just use `display pic.jpg` instead of `xv pic.jpg`, for example. If you use Xv for minimal editing activity, you could use the conversion features of imagemagick or just use the GIMP for more advanced editing). However, I don't think it'll be removed from Slackware at any time soon just because people have gotten used to it and would probably complain if it was removed -- and since it's not the world's most difficult thing to compile, and there's little development if any as far as I know, so the build script wouldn't have to change much.

Hi,

Slackware 12.1 'COPYRIGHT.TXT' is a good reference for software included as too type of license.

It is my understanding that the PINE mail client is also non-Free since version 3.9.2.

You spoke about "that does not matter, you can remove non-free software". Why remove? Why not just leave it alone? While these questions stands, Slackware will never be on this list http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#...xDistributions
At last, Slackware is called "Slackware Linux", and everything on slackware.com is written, "Slackware Linux", not GNU/Linux. Why?

+ to Xv and pine, beware of the official BitTorent client: since version 6.0 it's licence changes to proprietary, the vesion in Slackware-current is 4.4.0, still it is Ok :)

Let's make a list of non-free software in Slackware GNU/Linux.

Much ado about nothing. Did you know that every time a program changes its license to GPL God kills a kitten? Bill told me, so it must be true :)

If you want free as in "freedom" you have to use an MIT or BSD-style licence, not GPL's bloody viral licence. You won't find a free Linux distro but most of the *BSD family will qualify somewhat.

I could not disagree more :-).

The GPL certainly qualifies as a free license. Being able to use the work that someone does for free as a charitable service in a propriety application is not a necessary freedom ;-).

Debian is a free Linux distro:
http://www.debian.com/intro/free

Well, I could use something like Debian, but I like Slackware. Based on my research so far, it does not seem like it is going to be that difficult to remove the components that are non-free. Deleting those components seems like the logically solution because I still want to use Slackware :-p.

The GPL is certainly not a free licence in any sense. As I wrote, the BSD licence is a good example of a free licence. The GPL is a good example of a contaminating virus written by an ingenious social engineer with a pretty questionable and shaky agenda. Some sheeple think programming was a socialist invention. Lucky for the rest of us, historical revisionism seldom works for long.

Forcing people to do what you want can never be called freedom. It's arrogant and disingenious in the extreme to call the GPL a free licence. It's a contaminating, forcible open-source license. At least be honest and say you advocate forcing people to open source their code, but don't call it freedom.

Bollocks. If I write code and release it under the GPL, it means that I don't want someone to be able to take it and use it for proprietary purposes. Thats all. It doesn't restrict their freedom to use it, it just means that they can't benefit from my work without returning the favor. It isn't less free than BSD style licenses, it is a different philosophy of what "free" means. If you don't care if your work is used by others without returning the favor, then that is your choice. But don't claim that somehow I'm evil/socialist or some other crapola just because I think my code shouldn't become closed.


More bollocks. The GPL doesn't force anyone to do anything. What it says is that if you use GPL'ed code, you have to abide by its rules. You are always entirely free to NOT use GPL code and avoid the issue entirely.

I checked out the Xv site, and the source code is distributed; and when I scope out the source package (from the website), it contains a lot of C source, header and object files (all of the object files have matching *.c counterparts). While it's definitely not licensed under the GPL, it's free for personal use. I have always understood closed-source to mean you can't even see the original source code. In that sense, Xv is definitely not closed source.

Debian, being perhaps the biggest proprietor of "FREE [GPL-COMPLIANT] SOFTWAREE!!!!!!11!one!!1" doesn't use Firefox for some reason or another - more than likely due to any closed-sourcedness or non-freeness of the code. Hence, Iceweasel is used (as Jester pointed out, above).

Personally, I think it's dumb that so many people have jumped all over this issue in defense of the GPL. It's a license unlike any other that limits use of the very things it is applied to. This concept of "free-software" really bothers me; if the software works, use it. I especially don't like how it seems as though the use of non-free software somehow attracts the same amount of aggressive anti-subject zealotry as, say, a mass second- or third-world genocide (ie. Pol Pot). No one is going to die for the use of non-free software (despite whatever the movie Antitrust made you think).

Please, do not start a new "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" naming controversy. The official name of distribution is Slackware Linux.

To the OP: What did you call "Free Software"? Can you be more specific?

Who is forcing people to use the GPL?

Seriously, why care about anything being free/opensource or not, as long as it works?
NVIDIA drivers aren't free, yet it's a good example of a good proprietary linux software, not to mention they do listen to user comments (nvnews.net).

Flash player and Reader aren't free either, but they both work (regardless to the many mostly performance issues with flash) and I've still yet to see a better/simpler PDF viewer than Adobes own.

Most of us will never need to look at the source code of any non-opensource software, so why bother?

All packages (not home-made) should contain licenses.
On installed system you might try to get list of all files with licenses ("cat /var/log/packages/*|grep LICENSE" maybe, or "locate LICENSE") and check which of them are free or not. You might want to write script for that.

I suppose that -{Jester}- meant FSF's definition of freedom.
GPL is good in the sense, that I personally dislike the idea of someone taking software where (for example) I made modification, closing it, making it unavailable to original developers, then using for commercial purpose.

You can also do whatever you want with GPL code, as long as you don't redistribute it in source/compiled form. All restrictions apply to redistribution only, so home users shouldn't have any issues with GPL.

I assume you have this much disdain for copyright laws as well?

Consider this. Without the GPL, a company could take the collective work of the open source community, slap a few graphics and a new name on it, and use the finished product to make a tidy profit. The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that the gratis work of many skilled programmers is not misused. Who would write open programs if all the developers knew their work could be taken and sold by a corporation? You might literally be denied access to versions of your own code.

I did not mean to start an argument about free/open software, but to those who are questioning why it matters, you have plenty of examples in front of you proving it does. The XP/Vista fiasco is a perfect example. It is the general consensus of the Windows community that they want XP to continue to be supported, yet Microsoft still continues to insist on ending support for XP in a few years. This would never happen in the open source community, simply because the userbase would be able to maintain the code. There are plenty of quality programs in the pro-XP group that would be able to maintain and improve XP, if only it was open. Note the dependency on the corporation.

The above is a rather tame example. When you consider...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...msftlaw29.html
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/22/1536250
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/23/038241
... you might really start to wonder how much control you actually have. In this day and age, computers are not only a gateway to the internet, they are a learning tool, an aid to the disabled, and much more. A closed source environment simply limits the capabilities and choice of the user.

You might want to do some reading because this really was a tempest in a teapot. First off Iceweasel is an almost exact duplicate of Firefox. The Debian crowd made some changes to Firefox that Mozilla wouldn't roll into their codebase. Mozilla also objected to Debian releasing the modified version using the Firefox name, since it had modifications that the Mozilla version of Firefox didn't. So after much yelling, screaming, flaming and general bad behavior, Debian released their version of Firefox under the Iceweasel name. So bashing Mozilla for not making Firefox free is complete and utter nonsense since Debian was able to freely use it. What they couldn't use freely was the Firefox name.

Nice post.

Not to mention that the new names are just plain silly.

firefox = iceweasel?
thunderbird = icedove?

I refuse to use them based on their names alone.

:)

People, please, you're discussing this in the wrong forum!

Everyone™ knows that Slackware's all about religion. For politics, you really want the Debian forum.

Could everyone please quit playing "Who's holier than RMS?" You sound like a bunch of guinea hens cackling at each other to decide who's going to eat the plumpest tick.

I suppose for both of those statements to be true you would have to redefine the word "use".

Here's a few simple facts for you.

1- The GPL does not restrict what you can or cannot do with the code as long as you do not choose to re-distribute it according to the license.
2- Redistribution is a "use" of the code.

From the above two we come to:

3- The GPL does to a limited degree restrict what you can and cannot do with the code.

4- The GPL was created in hopes of achieving a goal of the FSF and RMS. That goal was to see that all software was "free" according to their definition of freedom. (Notice: that goal is not to prevent people from closing the source to any code you write, but to prevent ALL code from being closed. This is the stated goal of RMS and the FSF.)

If we all want to play the "holier than thou" game, I win, because I take the only sane approach that the only truly "free" software is that which is placed into the public domain, allowing anyone and everyone to do anything and everything with it, including changing the licensing terms, editing, redistributing, whatever.

LOL

Do you mean to say that J.R. "Bob" Dobbs would not be happy?

:)

Or perhaps that released under the WTFPL license? :-)

Wrong conclusion. The right of redistribution is granted exclusively to the software author by copyright law. If the author does nothing, nobody can redistribute. It is not the software author who prevents redistribution; that is the default state.

By setting conditions which permit redistribution through a copyright license, it shouldn't be said the license is doing anything to prevent distribution since the license didn't have anything to do with the prohibition in the first place. This is true of all copyright licenses, not just the GPL.

Note that this is where copyright licenses and End-User Licensing Agreements differ: EULAs purport to DENY rights that the user would otherwise have if the EULA did not exist; whereas copyright licenses only grant rights that would otherwise be denied if the license did not exist.

Extracted from the JRBDPL - slackware linux is distributed under this licence:

1. You are permitted to modify the source code of the software in any way you wish.
...
6. The text of this licence should never be included with a distribution of the source code.
7. This source code must not be distributed unmodified.
...
42. Once modified, the source is no longer deemed to be relevant to the software and so this licence does not apply.

:)

Last post in this thread, I swear.

Actually it is the right conclusion when we are talking about varying degrees of "freedom". To claim that the GPL is as free as the BSD license or the public domain is wrong precisely because it doesn't grant as much freedom. Just because copyright law defaults to a restriction does not mean that a license which allows those default restrictions is 100% free.

Allow me to misquote "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." In other words, not going all the way to true "freedom" is 100% equivalent to denying that freedom in the first place.

No, it doesn't. You can do whatever the hell you want with that code, as long as you keep it private. If you try to benefit from it by distributing it, THEN you have to contribute back. At that point it is no longer about freedom in my opinion.


Absolutely not true. I guess I don't view someone taking my code and and closing it without compensating me or contributing back as any sort of freedom that I recognize. Theft maybe, but freedom, no. If someone else wants to let their work go, that is their right but don't claim that I'm not promoting freedom by ensuring that people who benefit from my work have to pay something back.


Oh hogwash. People love to talk on and on about freedom without ever mentioning the responsibilities that go with it. The GPL is just a tool to ensure that if you benefit from someone else's work, you live up to your responsibility to that person. The BSD license chooses to ignore that responsibility.

You claim that the GPL limits freedom because it does not allow its code to be used in anything else other then GPL programs. I can see why you feel that threatens freedom and I respect your point of view.

I choose to view the situation differently. I claim that those who would seek to use free software in closed source applications are a larger threat to freedom.

I will draw an analogy. The Constitution allows you free speech, but it does not allow you to deny others that freedom. If your "freedom of speech" denies others their rights, it is not protected by the Constitution. From your point of view, the Constitution is restricting your freedom. I agree, it is. The restriction is necessary for freedom to function. The same line of reasoning applies to the "restrictions" in the GPL.

EDIT: And to clarify, I recognize that the BSD license is "freer" then the GPL. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. I simply believe that the "freedom" offered by the BSD license will limit software's overall freedom in the long run.

Hi,

The GPL depends on a defined 'copyleft';

I really don't even want to discuss 'EULA'. That's a mess.

Hi,

This debate on words can go on and on. This is not the forum for this type of discussion.
It should be in the 'Linux - General' forum.

The terms of the license are open and available to read and study. There is no mystery or veil associated with the license. People are free to accept or reject the terms of the license.

People who write code and then release that code under the GPL do so voluntarily. Nobody forces a person to release new code under the GPL.

People who use code licensed under the GPL do so voluntarily. Nobody forces a person to use GPL code.

People who use GPL licensed code are not required to contribute new code. If they modify the code and then redistribute that modified code to other people, because they voluntarily chose to use the original code under the terms of the GPL, then they are required to release those modifications to the public. They agreed to do that when they voluntarily chose to use the code. Nobody forced them to accept those terms of usage.

Other people who use the code might or might not decide to use the modified code. Nobody is forced to use modified code.

The entire relationship is voluntary and reciprocating. People can opt out of the GPL any time simply by not using the code.

BSD is free too. BSD licensed code allows other people to modify the code to their personal needs but does not require people to contribute that code openly for others to examine and study. That relationship also is voluntary. Otherwise, BSD code is much the same as GPL code. That is, people are free to voluntarily use or not use BSD code. People are free to use or not use modified code.

Neither license prevents of forbids people from selling code.

Proprietary code is not free according to the four freedoms, but nonetheless remains voluntary to use or not use.

Arguably, the most fundamental right recognized in any social system is the right to voluntarily surrender or forego existing rights. This is the basis of contracting. Agreeing to the terms of the GPL or a BSD license is done voluntarily. Because the relationship under each license is voluntary, there is no force or coercion involved. Compare that healthy relationship to any modern political system.

Moved: This thread is more suitable in the Linux general forum and has been moved accordingly to help this thread get the exposure it deserves.

"Does not require" = freedom.

"Requires" = not freedom.

That sounds pretty simple to me.

The GPL is a forcible open source license. It's only political rhetoric to call it a free license. All the word games in the world aren't going to change the facts.

There are no "four freedoms". There's just plain freedom, which means exactly what it sounds like. It means there are no requirements.

Anything else can not be called freedom.

Yes, very arguably ;)

The fundamental right recognized in any political system is the right for people to do as they choose. In fact, it says "Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Amonst those it wasn't written "to control the actions of others according to one's personal philosophy" although for many people here it would seem that falls under "Pursuit of Happiness"!

Quite right, Alan!

Cheers,

Randux

Not at all. I'm in my 34th year of being employed to write closed-source, proprietary code, all of which is copyrighted and owned by my employers.

What I object to isn't even the terms of the GPL licence; they are certainly free to set whatever terms of use they find agreeable.

I object only to the perversion of calling it a "free licence" or calling GPL'd software "free software" That's just not true.

The GPL licence is a forcible open source licence.

BSD and MIT licences do exactly that. Your fears are not justified, because all those devs work can indeed be taken and sold by others. They just prefer a different model. They are certainly entitled to release their code into the wilds under whatever terms they please, after all, they wrote it.

Yes, that's quite right. Indeed none of the code I've written for my employers is mine. But I was paid for my time. This is similar to many artists and musicians who are not able to retain rights for their work.

Was it stolen from me? No, I got paid. Was it worth more than I was paid? Yes, that's business.

You're mixing quite a few factors together and your conclusion is not supported on your premise...OpenBSD is packaged under the BSD license and continues to be supported by the user community.

Microslop simply choose to put out rubbish and control all the aspects and that's also their choice. Winbloze is not bad because it's closed-source, proprietary code, it's bad because it's rubbish with 80% of the code path designed to spy on the user and protect against piracy (failing miserably, from all reports).

An example of a closed-source proprietary OS which has been around longer than UNIX and runs 80% of the world's financial transactions is IBM's MVS and z/OS operating systems. They are the top performing, most secure and reliable OS ever developed, and they're entirely proprietary and closed source. Yet they continue to evolve and are serviced by a broad community.

I would certainly prefer to run z/OS on my PC more than any UNIX. I can't because I can't pay the licence fees or buy the hardware. But that doesn't mean I can complain against IBM. They have spent billions on developing great products and they are also free to licence them they way they feel is proper.

Wow...
 

You know, I was very much afraid to join this site in my first days of seeing it. I was thinking that all Linux users were living with the "Brave GNU World" mentality and all wore shirts with the GPL emblazoned on the back.

I'm both very happy and mildly saddened that that is not the case.

It's nice to see that there is still cause for debate even amongst a crowd of people that all use an OS that revolves around a kernel that's licensed under the GPL. If everyone in the (GNU/)Linux user community thought the same way, this site would be no fun at all. :)

I have to say, I really respect Randux's statement that the GPL is not a "Free" license, but rather an "Open-Source Enforceable" one. That's a very nice term that removes the positive propaganda of calling it "Free" and the negative counterpart calling it "Viral." It's a nice, neutral term. Regardless of my respect for that, I still refer to the GPL by my own definition: A "Freedom Insurance" License. But that's just me.

Going back to the original point of this post, about Slackware being free, I'm ashamed to say that I've never really had a chance to run Slackware. However, I know that most Linux distros are not "Free" by the terms invoked by the FSF, and many of them are "Free" by the terms of their own distributors (and nearly all of them are "Free" by the terms invoked by our wallets). I have to say I am very pleased with the development at the FSF's free software directory for a "Blob Free" Linux Kernel (http://directory.fsf.org/project/linux/).

You know, I can't help but think that if Linux was never released under the GPL, it never would've made it anywhere. It's too bad most sites end up blocking debates regarding free software. This post was such a great read, I couldn't help responding.

On a personal note, I may actually switch to either gNewSense or even GNU/Hurd in the future, since I'm that much in favor of the GNU GPL. The one thing that made me adopt GNU/Linux was reading Stallman's "Free Software, Free Society."

Sorry for the long post!

I don't understand how you could draw such a conclusion based on the fact that *BSD has been around longer than Linux and runs on the majority of webservers. It wasn't released under the GPL. It uses the BSD license.

Linux isn't good because it's licensed under the GPL (and check me on this but I'm pretty sure it significantly predates the GPL). It's good because it's a well thought out system that people can use.

Make no mistake, there are many factors which dictate the success or failure of any software component or system including marketing, licenses, complexity, usability, performance, reliability, etc. and the list goes on. Very few times in history has bad licensing killed good products (about the only thing I can think of like this is BetaMax video tape.)

And so do I. Somewhat like Debian GNU/Hurd.

But what can be done at thie moment --- is removing non-free sw from a distro
currently running by a person.

It's not a conclusion so much as it is a working generalization that I'm trying to become better educated about. After 1 year of off and on study, that's the question I'm trying to answer for myself now. I don't like being biased... I just am. I can't help it, but I am trying to do something about it. Once again, that's part of the reasons I joined LQ.

Just a bit of quick research: according to Wikipedia, the first GPL license was written by RMS in 1989, and the Linux kernel was started in 1991. I'm not saying this had any bearing on Torvalds's decision to license the kernel as such, of course.

Really? Do you have any link with numbers to back that up?