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.