when we talk about Gnu/Linux distro we mean to talk about those Linux distro those incorporate the idea of GNU as well
so which distros are Gnu/linux distros i.e. they contain all free softwares

free not in price but as defined by Gnu

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

any clarification in this matter will be realy helpfull

regards

Almost all distributions allow these freedoms, albeit under certain constraints, as imposed by thier licenses.

Debian GNU/Linux are very particular about GNU and the GPL.

Freedom 3 that you talk about is where most licenses differ, when they try to force you to distribute the modified code a certain way. For example: GPL wants derivative works to be GPL; CC-BY Wants attribution; CC-NC Wants derivative works to be distributed without the intent of making money and so on.

You see, if a software vendor does not allow freedom 1, then the license is not deemed as Open Source compatible and in essence the software is not Free/Open Source.

But, does this answer your question?

As I understand it, the use of GNU/Linux is not based on any discussion of the various freedoms you have outlined. GNU/Linux is used by Richard Stallman and his adherents to denote any system using GNU utilities and a Linux kernel, which is practice is pretty much all of the distributions in common use.

However, others would point out that a modern Linux-based operating systems contains much more than just GNU and Linux - the X Window system, a desktop environment, the many applications that are usually bundled with a distribution and so on.

Personally, while I can understand that Stallman is peeved that the contribution of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation is often overlooked, and by commentators who should know better, I think he's batting on a losing wicket if he hopes to get such a clumsy title as GNU/Linux adopted for common use. He'd have more luck getting someone to finish of the HURD so he can release a standalone GNU system...

well i think
Gnu/Linux incorporates both the Gnu software and the software realeased under Gnu

this faq has helped me
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.htm

So how do we make out whether a Gnu/Linux Distro does not contain any non-free software

what non-free software do u know about that we have today in Gnu/Linux distro

regards

There is only one distro that comes with only FSF-endorsed free software: Ututo

Not counting LFS-style distros that you build yourself, that is. . .

Let's change the question around.

Which distro is NOT GNU/Linux?

It's not that it isn't possible, it just that there isn't any other set of tools (GNU) that have been made for Linux. There wasn't ever any need.

As far as I'm concerned, all Linux distributions run GNU tools until I hear otherwise.

And I'll agree that rms is a little off.

can we say that those distros that are licensed under GNU GPL are
GNU/Linux distros?

Not really, You could have GNU/Hurd.

Linux is just the kernel.

this is from gnu's doc

"We use Linux-based GNU systems today for all of our work, and we hope you will use them too. Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often called ``distros''). Most of them include non-free software--their developers follow the philosophy associated with Linux rather than that of GNU. But there are also completely free GNU/Linux distros."

so what we use is a "gnu/linux distro"
it might not be "free gnu/linux distro"
as there are only few "free gnu/linux distro"

regards

What? Show me a non-free Linux distribution.

You can't distribute non-free software on the same distribution media as GPL'd software. In all cases, GPL'd software is always separate and available for free.
Interesting, but that doesn't mean anything to me. What does it mean to you? If by philosophy, they mean the GPL, then I see them both as the same.

the Gnu/linux distributions allow addition of non-free software as well
but free Gnu/linux distribution allow only free software to be added to the system


read this

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#reserve

regards

more to read

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/catego...n-freeSoftware

and this
http://packages.debian.org/stable/allpackages

look for non-free packges there

i am posting these becasue i had some confusions at the start and these links helped me overcome those

regards

Thanks for the link. Now, I understand what you're saying.

But, I don't agree with all of the ideas presented there by Stallman.

I apologize I got in this conversation, really. I didn't understand that it was a GNU advocacy thread.

no this is not GNU advocay thread instead getting to know about
Gnu/linux and free software etc. We cannot run from facts.

i also did not agree earleir to stallman's ideas but when he talks about freedom and free-software , it is true and will surely matter to us sooner or later

regards

For example folks, most distros contain Java code, which is not GPL'd. Some contain drivers like the ATI or NVidia proprietary display drivers.

Even the common X image display tool, xv, is not GPL'd.

In short, the only 'free' distros are the ones that include only gpl or compatably licensed software.

--Shade