This is what I found in changelog
what does it mean? Can I still use xv? I use xv to set up root window background for twm. As I remember shareware for windows is app. which can be used for some period of time then user needs to register and pay for application. Does it the same situation? Essentially on of most important point to use Linux is just I can avoid such shareware ****. So please someone be so kind to explain to me these issues?

non-commercial shareware means just that: as long as you're using it for a non-commercial purpose (or IN a non-commercial distro) you can use it for free, but not if you (or anyone else) makes money out of it. And registration is appreciated.
From the xv README
BTW: this always has been the xv license!

1 members found this post helpful.

I don't know what prompted Pat to move it to extra/ but the licensing terms are in /usr/doc/xv-3.10a/README, and are quite clear.


There are plenty of alternatives for setting the root background. xv is overkill for that purpose. I've always used wmsetbg myself (it comes with WindowMaker).

3 members found this post helpful.

Another alternative without any licensing issues is feh.

http://slackbuilds.org/repository/14.2/graphics/feh/

4 members found this post helpful.

Xv was part of SLS before I forked it in 1993. When I noticed the license, I got permission from John Bradley to continue to provide it as part of Slackware. However, it remained something that people would circle back to as an example of how Slackware was non-free, or at least how it was installing non-free software by default. As noted by someone else, yes - I'm tightening up on licensing, and would like to avoid installing non-free software by default. But I'm going to be somewhat pragmatic about it... we'll never have the endorsement of the FSF because cleaning it up to their standards would result in a fairly non-functional system. I'm not about to remove all the firmware blobs, for example. And they'd probably be unhappy about something like the google-chrome.SlackBuild (even though it's just a BSD licensed shell script) because it exists to install non-free software. I think people should be allowed to install non-free software, if that's what they want. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on our concept of freedom.

19 members found this post helpful.

See also this thread, including post #3 that Patrick just confirmed and expanded (I agree to agree with him on the concept of freedom applied to software) and this page.

2 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the explanation. I'd assumed it was something along those lines. I'm completely in agreement with your stance on free vs non-free.

Yes, I remember the FSF getting bent out of shape about that with OpenBSD, despite OpenBSD's hardline stance on anything proprietary. OpenBSD is "non-free" according to the FSF extremists simply because it enables the installation of non-free components. You'll never make them happy, so no point trying to pander to them.

3 members found this post helpful.

Has anyone even seen the FSF's list of "free" distros? I just looked and I only recognize one of them, that leads me to believe that there must be about 10 users (including devs) that actually use them, and then on old IBM hardware.

RMS uses Trisquel, as far as I understand. I haven't heard of one other person who uses a totally free distro apart from Luke Smith who said once he uses Parabola. That is literally it. It sounds like a really irritating user experience.

I've only heard of Dyne:bolic because some time ago I was doing some research for a friend who was looking for a Linux OS designed for multimedia/music production. And Dyne:bolic has apparently fallen into disrepair (2011) since it is recommended to only run it from the "live" media.

The Freenix people also maintain a relatively easy to way to go full free on Slackware: http://freeslack.net/

Sure, but half your hardware is not going to work after going this route. I don't think that going the FSF route is viable for any "modern" distro because you would literally need hardware from the 80's to be able to run their "distros", and their software (like Icecat) which greatly affects the "user experience".

I agree with volkerdi where freedom means being able to run the software you want, not restricting it to the standards of a few "elites".

3 members found this post helpful.

True, it's not going to work for everyone, but I used to run FreeSlack on my Thinkpad X200 (yep, that's old, and it's dead now), but PureOS running on a machine from Purism doesn't exactly quality as hardware from the 80s . I run Slackware on mine (not Freenix at the moment), but I'm inclined to appreciate the work and hardline stance of the FSF. I'm glad they're around at least.

1 members found this post helpful.

Freenix is probably a good resource for volkerdi in the sense that he could get info on licensing considering that he is looking through that ATM.

But it still seems a little extreme to me. For example, my networking would be broken (as I suspect most others would be as well) if I tried to follow their guidelines. I would bet that "RMS" is still using network/video/etc cards that use jumpers so is probably not affected by "current" hardware requirements.

I also have some "slightly" older hardware, (Latitude C640, Latitude D410), But still wouldn't consider putting one of the "free" distros on it due to user experience. But that's just my personal preference.

EDIT:
LMAO, your Thinkpad X200 was not that old. I have 2 Inspiron 1520's ('07-'08) that are daily use. Granted they are upgraded as far as they can go hardware wise. The both run Slackware64-14.2 and work great. One is a little slow due to the C2D @ 2GHz, but my main one has a C2E X9000 @ 2.8GHz and only slows down a little when loading gigantic things like LibreOffice.