(TUTORIAL) How to Make LiveCD/USB from installed Slackware 13/current or Arch system!

onebuck · 07-11-2010, 08:49 AM

Hi,

I agree with Alien Bob this should be in Linux - General. Your title 'How to Make LiveCD/USB from installed Slackware 13/current system!' is very misleading since you are mixing distributions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfer7

I don´t think you should criticize linus72. There are many similarities between Arch Linux and Slackware.

The more reason to be in Linux - General. As this thread seems to delve in a region of no-mans land since 'How to Make LiveCD/USB from installed Slackware 13/current system!' really is a a expansion of 'Cooking Up Some Slack. (CUSS)' and adding other distributions. I'm not even going to get into the use of Live USB_Wiki or Linux Live for CD & USB problems here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by linus72

hey golfer7
it's my fault; I forgot this was in the Slackware forum
I thought I had it in General

If any Mod sees this maybe move this thread to General and I will
adjust title for both Slackware and ARCH

Please note the persistency "bug" with the new kernel stuff golfer7

I plan to release kernel kits for previous 2.6.33.3 kernel too!

You should use the http://c0491962.cdn.cloudfiles.racks...ons/report.gif button to request the move. I will report and request the move since you tend to fall short with such a busy schedule.

linus72 · 07-11-2010, 08:58 AM

Well actually

1) I edited out the ARCH specific stuff and so it's all Slackware now
thus it fits here..

2)Whether its related to CUSS, LiveUSB wiki, or Linux-Live 6.30
its not at all related to those; in fact it is the most up-to-date way to create a livecd from your installed x86/x86_64 Slackware system
and cannot be compared to others that are far older and out-of-date-
a) Ritchies Linux-Live is modified a great deal from Tomas' original
it is for squashfs 4.0 and can also do x86_64
Tomas' original can do neither

So, I dont think it needs to be moved anywhere...

onebuck · 07-11-2010, 12:09 PM

Hi,

Fine with me! But do things right instead of Trademark & Copyright violations;

Quote:

excerpt from COPYRIGHT.TXT;
Slackware is a registered trademark of Patrick Volkerding and Slackware Linux, Inc.
Permission to use the Slackware trademark to refer to the Slackware distribution
of Linux is hereby granted if the following conditions are met:

1. In order to be called "Slackware", the distribution may not be altered
from the way it appears on the central FTP site (ftp.slackware.com). This
is to protect the integrity, reliability, and reputation of the Slackware
distribution. (Note that moving entire directories like "source" or
"contrib" to a second CD-ROM is allowable, but leaving them out and
distributing a single source-free disc is *not*, as indicated below)
Anyone wishing to distribute an altered version must have the changes
approved by volkerdi@slackware.com (i.e. certified to be reasonably
bug-free). If the changed distribution meets the required standards for
quality, then written permission to use the Slackware trademark may be
provided.

2. All related source code must be included. (This is also required by the
GNU General Public License, and other licenses)

3. Except by written permission from Slackware Linux, Inc., the Slackware
trademark may not be used as (or as part of) a product name, company
name, or registered domain name.

4. Any approved use of "Slackware" must be followed by a circle-R, and must
acknowledge our ownership of the mark.

Note that you can still redistribute a distribution that doesn't meet these
criteria, you just can't call it "Slackware". Personally, I hate restricting
things in any way, but these restrictions are not designed to make life
difficult for anyone. I just want to make sure that bugs are not added to
commercial redistributions of Slackware. They have been in the past, and
the resulting requests for help have flooded my mailbox! I'm just trying to
make sure that I have some recourse when something like that happens.

Any questions about this policy should be directed to:
Patrick Volkerding <volkerdi@slackware.com>

If you are going to use a trademark illegally such as this 'nFluxOS Slackware x86/x86_64 LiveCD Kits! 06/30/2010' which is a trademark infringement. Your continued misuse of the trademark Slackware® is wrong. You do this all the time and I know you have been warned many times here on LinuxQuestions.org by myself and other people. 'PV' has stated clearly in the above. So what part is difficult for you to understand?

Change it!

golfer7 · 07-11-2010, 12:46 PM

onebuck,

No "violation" at all. The name of the distribution is nFluxOS. It would be far worse if linus72 did not tell us that nFluxOS is a remaster of Slackware 13.1. No need to change anything!

golfer7 · 07-11-2010, 12:54 PM

linus72,

Yes, I got this error message when trying to boot my live dvd from my installed Slackware 13.1 system using your kernel 2.6.34-pae: "Unable to mount union, dropping you... This should never happen". Something like that.

I am about to try your new version of said kernel now.

onebuck · 07-11-2010, 02:00 PM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfer7

onebuck,

No "violation" at all. The name of the distribution is nFluxOS. It would be far worse if linus72 did not tell us that nFluxOS is a remaster of Slackware 13.1. No need to change anything!

'nFluxOS Slackware x86/x86_64 LiveCD Kits! 06/30/2010' which is a trademark infringement since this is how the site shows or distributes.

You will note that the label Slackware which is Trademarked & Copyrighted. So yes, the removal of the Slackware Trademark should be done. If linus72 has been authorized via 'Anyone wishing to distribute an altered version must have the changes approved by volkerdi@slackware.com (i.e. certified to be reasonably bug-free)'. Then show me. If it was a remaster it would still be violation as per section #1 in COPYRIGHT.TXT because it would have to be changed to perform as linuz72 has specified;

Quote:

excerpt from COPYRIGHT.TXT;
Slackware is a registered trademark of Patrick Volkerding and Slackware Linux, Inc.
Permission to use the Slackware trademark to refer to the Slackware distribution
of Linux is hereby granted if the following conditions are met:

1. In order to be called "Slackware", the distribution may not be altered
from the way it appears on the central FTP site (ftp.slackware.com). This
is to protect the integrity, reliability, and reputation of the Slackware
distribution. (Note that moving entire directories like "source" or
"contrib" to a second CD-ROM is allowable, but leaving them out and
distributing a single source-free disc is *not*, as indicated below)
Anyone wishing to distribute an altered version must have the changes
approved by volkerdi@slackware.com (i.e. certified to be reasonably
bug-free). If the changed distribution meets the required standards for
quality, then written permission to use the Slackware trademark may be
provided.

2. All related source code must be included. (This is also required by the
GNU General Public License, and other licenses)

3. Except by written permission from Slackware Linux, Inc., the Slackware
trademark may not be used as (or as part of) a product name, company
name, or registered domain name.

4. Any approved use of "Slackware" must be followed by a circle-R, and must
acknowledge our ownership of the mark.

Note that you can still redistribute a distribution that doesn't meet these
criteria, you just can't call it "Slackware". Personally, I hate restricting
things in any way, but these restrictions are not designed to make life
difficult for anyone. I just want to make sure that bugs are not added to
commercial redistributions of Slackware. They have been in the past, and
the resulting requests for help have flooded my mailbox! I'm just trying to
make sure that I have some recourse when something like that happens.

Any questions about this policy should be directed to:
Patrick Volkerding <volkerdi@slackware.com>

His violation is that, a violation and you can attempt to defend all you want. It will still be wrong! If I'm wrong then show me where? Not author an opinion.

linus72 · 07-11-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

1. In order to be called "Slackware", the distribution may not be altered
from the way it appears on the central FTP site (ftp.slackware.com).

It's not a "distribution"

It's a kernel, modules, kernel source, and Ritchies's linux-live
none of it is from Slackware, or in any way related.

It is for Slackware

So, what should I call it?
x86/x86_64 livecd kit for unnamed distro!

I have to let the end user Know it's for their Slackware system
somehow...?

If I need to put a circle-R at the end then I will do that...

onebuck · 07-11-2010, 04:43 PM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by linus72

It's not a "distribution"

It's a kernel, modules, kernel source, and Ritchies's linux-live
none of it is from Slackware, or in any way related.

It is for Slackware

So, what should I call it?
x86/x86_64 livecd kit for unnamed distro!

I have to let the end user Know it's for their Slackware system
somehow...?

If I need to put a circle-R at the end then I will do that...

You need to follow the text;

Quote:

'4. Any approved use of "Slackware" must be followed by a circle-R, and must
acknowledge our ownership of the mark.' Any approved use of the term 'Slackware'.

Do you have that? Show me and the LQ forum authorized usage of the term 'Slackware'. My money is that PV doesn't know or has been communicated with concerning the use of the term 'Slackware'.

linus72 · 07-11-2010, 08:00 PM

Hmmm
what about all the other Slackware-based distro's that freely mention the word Slackware?
SalixOS has many instances of the word Slackware, no circle-R...

I could mention others.

So, are you saying the word Slackware cannot be used?

it still says a "distribution"
and mine is a kit that has NO Slackware parts to it...

I will change it, however
I expect you Onebuck to find SalixOS' threads, and others, here and do the same to theirs
as you have done to mine

onebuck · 07-11-2010, 09:09 PM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by linus72

Hmmm
what about all the other Slackware-based distro's that freely mention the word Slackware?
SalixOS has many instances of the word Slackware, no circle-R...

I could mention others.

So, are you saying the word Slackware cannot be used?

it still says a "distribution"
and mine is a kit that has NO Slackware parts to it...

I will change it, however
I expect you Onebuck to find SalixOS' threads, and others, here and do the same to theirs
as you have done to mine

The common use of the Trademark is allowable but to use it professionally with the intent of binding a Trademark to another use is a violation.

If you feel it's OK to violate the law then you are in for some major problems. Trademark & Copyright are serious issues. Read the COPYRIGHT.TXT for understanding;

Quote:

3. Except by written permission from Slackware Linux, Inc., the Slackware
trademark may not be used as (or as part of) a product name, company
name, or registered domain name.
4. Any approved use of "Slackware" must be followed by a circle-R, and must
acknowledge our ownership of the mark.

If you have questions concerning the text then do as stated

Quote:

"Any questions about this policy should be directed to:
Patrick Volkerding <volkerdi@slackware.com>".

If your taking this as an attack then report it. I'm not personally attacking you but trying to point out the problem is a violation of the use of the Trademark 'Slackware'. If I happen onto the same in this forum then I will repeat what has been said here or something similar.

You can expect all you want but until the action(s) are necessary then I'll just peruse or wait patiently.

Get over it and abide by the Trademark & Copyright.

brianL · 07-12-2010, 02:18 AM

Hey, Gary, don't you think you're going a bit OTT with all this ® business? You're beginning to sound like Steve Ballmer.

linus72 isn't marketing his distros professionally, he's using his hobby (or whatever) to benefit others, not to rip anybody off. I haven't checked every Slack®er's profile, but I think you're the only one who ever uses the ®.

linus72 · 07-12-2010, 06:36 AM

I can see both sides; my side and Onebuck's
though in truth Onebuck is probably right about the derivative LiveCD
I named "nFluxOS-slackware-Current-i686.iso"
which of course means I am also in violation with ARCH, Debian,and Ubuntu..
http://multidistro.com/downloads/newdownloads.html

right?

So, the problem becomes how do you name a *-based distro without
telling the end user what it is based on?

I have no problem changing the names, etc

However; many Slacker's freely use the name Slackware, etc
with no circle-R, etc
http://www.dawoodfall.net/

http://learnix.net/

http://connie.slackware.com/~mrgoblin/

My end point being that

1) the livecd kits only have the name Slackware to identify what OS it's for.

2) the remaster "nFluxOS-slackware-Current-i686.iso"; that I put out
must in some way denote to the user what they are getting
so, if I changed the name; how would I convey it's Slackware-based
without the mention of it being Slackware-based?

I dont care about changing the names, etc and I certainly
do not mean to violate their respective names or to in anyway
say that what I have made is Slackware, etc

The only intention of nFluxOS, all 4 versions(Arch,Debian,Slackware,Ubuntu),
is to showcase the Fluxbox wm mainly

I wanted also to make available a Arch and Slackware based Livecd
so that the end user could have the most up to date
versions of each respective distro; note that all 4 versions
of nFluxOS are ahead of any others.
The Slackware version is up to date as of 07/04/2010

so, my aims were never to slight the names, or to say my derivative
is "better" or "official"

Any ideas on how I could possibly change names, etc
and still have it clearly spelled out that it is arch/debian/slackware/ubuntu-based?

see here
http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Syste...I-P-2177.shtml

so, would they be in violation saying it's Slackware based?
The problem is I cant just call it nFluxOS, because there are 4 different versions
so, I cant say "nFluxOS, a Slackware-based distro", because it's not just Slackware
it's also 3 other distros
thats the only reason the livecd has the name "nFluxOS-slackware-Current-i686.iso"
is to denote what it's based on
"nFluxOS-debian-Squeeze-i686.iso"
"nFluxOS-ubuntu-10.04-i686.iso"
"nFluxOS-ARCH-2010.05-i686.iso"

onebuck · 07-12-2010, 06:46 AM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL

Hey, Gary, don't you think you're going a bit OTT with all this ® business? You're beginning to sound like Steve Ballmer.

linus72 isn't marketing his distros professionally, he's using his hobby (or whatever) to benefit others, not to rip anybody off. I haven't checked every Slack®er's profile, but I think you're the only one who ever uses the ®.

No, I don't think so. I do believe in the rule of law. To look the other way because of one's intended goal doesn't mean it rectifies the violation. May not be marketing but is presenting the label within presented content the Trademark 'Slackware' that is not his to use legally or morally. Read the COPYRIGHT.TXT for understanding;

Quote:

3. Except by written permission from Slackware Linux, Inc., the Slackware
trademark may not be used as (or as part of) a product name, company
name, or registered domain name.
4. Any approved use of "Slackware" must be followed by a circle-R, and must
acknowledge our ownership of the mark.

If you have questions concerning the text then do as stated:

Quote:

"Any questions about this policy should be directed to:
Patrick Volkerding <volkerdi@slackware.com>".

The wishes of the Trademark & Copyright holder reinforce my position(s) with this matter.

As for comparison to 'Ballmer', that's your opinion and you really don't know me personally.

It's either Right or Wrong to use the Trademark & Copyright material properly. No gray area.

brianL · 07-12-2010, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onebuck

As for comparison to 'Ballmer', that's you opinion and you really don't know me personally.

I was only joking there. I wouldn't compare my worst enemy to him.

the trooper · 07-12-2010, 06:54 AM

@Linus72

Have you thought about contacting P.V and Slackware directly?.
See what their position is regarding your use of the Slackware name?.