Care to share: SlackMATE
 

As it turned out any script that happens to contain

VERSION
TMP
OUTPUT
tar
gzip
configure
make
DESTDIR
install
.
.
.
or any other commonly used unix command or variable name

could be a subject of copyright infringement claims by slackbuilds.org or slackware.com.

So I had to suspend the link below.

Well done guys. I can think of one famous person who will be really proud of you.


SlackMATE is MATE desktop + PAM + software selection on top of Slackware-current.

Install Slackware-current using the tagfiles in extra/tags.

Put the SlackMATE folder outside of any system folder.
The system folders /bin /usr etc... will be bind mounted readonly into the fake chroot.
I put SlackMATE in /home.

Run SlackMATE.SlackBuild inside the SlackMATE folder.

DO NOT FORGET to replace the original /etc/login.defs by the new one.

Edit rc.M to remove -l from crond command line, cronie doesn't support it.

Edit rc.4 to make it run /usr/sbin/lightdm.

Enjoy

Good job. I'm sure looking forward to try it.

leptonika requires openjpeg that is not slackware-current.


lib64 - because of this expression the script does not work on 32-bit system, it had to be removed.
Thank you for the work, I liked the result.
Sorry for my bad english.

hi ivandi, thanks for this, should be fun to try it.

I have absolutely no intention of being annoying or pedantic, but I have a question: looking at this directory may I know the reason why you have sistematically removed all the copyright and license informations from the scripts you have taken from other repositories (SBo, for example) and you are now redistributing?

EDIT: LOL at the following post: you funny winiks1 (beside that, not even the author is preserved)

It's frustrating ... you considered how many files called "license" on my computer? Why do I need it? I have to deal with it both unnecessary wrappers !!! Suffice it to mention the author ... It is a kind of protest with unnecessary information.

Yes the license within each build script specifically says it has to be preserved. Even over at SlackWorks I've preserved Patrick's information even with ConsoleKit2 when I moved it away from ConsoleKit.

Plus, that's a hefty amount of rebuild just to use mate-screensaver.

I wish you the best of luck in claiming copyrights on simple scripts that package other people's work.

I am not going to follow this insanity. It is ridiculous. Even disgusting.

There is a difference between redistribution and sharing.

Anyways


P.S. Do not forget to copyright the "#!/bin/sh" line. How pathetic.

It's a simple appreciation on how they work the initial slackbuild
If you don't respect others, then don't expect others to respect yours

Anyway, you don't need PAM to make screensaver works. I had it solved on my Msb

No one has claimed copyright, and ponce went to some lengths to carefully frame his question - which has not been answered.

Personally, I do not believe in intellectual property of ANY kind - it is an abomination and the single greatest impediment to human progress today. But I do absolutely believe that mutual respect among sentient beings is the ONLY principle that can mediate our interactions and result in a sustainable, peaceful and progressive society... period. Until we each look at all others and see ourselves - literally - we are without hope.

As willysr (aka Willy the wise) says, it is a simple matter of respect for others. It isn't about copyright law, it is simple respect for others, especially those on whose freely given work, you wish to build.

If this link is now "403" I guess we should remove this thread then.

I think you have read my post wrong, ivandi: I asked if there's a particular reason why you have deleted some specific lines from the build scripts.

I tried to find one but I wasn't able to.

For example, once, in the past, I took someone else's script and deleted nearly a thousand of lines at the top because I opened it frequently in the editor and I have to digit a lot of page down to get to the place where I usually have to edit: doing so I erased the modification log but also licensing and copyright informations, and I think this was legit, as long as I kept it for myself. Then I did the error of forgetting what I had done and post the modified script on a forum: I explained why I had done it, trying to apologize.

I don't think that what you write is the answer because if you consider copyrighting the work of other people and licensing the redistribution not important you could as well left the lines in, instead you took care to edit each script to remove them.

Consider that when at SBo we chose the BSD license for redistributing the scripts we did it because it seemed the most permissive (everybody, please, don't start a debate about licenses).

I even use the WTFPL myself for some of the scripts I maintain so, as far as I'm concerned, I can tell, for example, the lua one -that I actually inherited- is not included in the consideration above.

Maybe some other author of the scripts could have told you that if you find the work of who wrote those not useful/reliable why you took them in the first place and haven't you written them all from scratch? But this isn't me, so please just ignore this sentence.

Regarding last statement, making them available for download unfortunately is redistributing.

a little bit of an over reaction
no one will ever take legal action
(just for info there is a copyrights even on simple scripts that package other people's work if its published with with a licences that clame the copy right)
but removing copy right information makes you looking stupid.

this is how it works,
you take a existing script, change something, add your name and address below the existing one.
you write it partial new, there is a heavily borrowed from notice ...
you put a lot of things together from different people to make something new, I see this, I have respect.
removing copy right ... noooo, why, kiddy? cheater? no respect from others?
you do not do this if you want to look serious and adult and as a trustful person who earns respect for his/her work.
it's that simple
and it's never to late to learn

The licenses are made as such to show origin and transfer of the work as it passes along respectfully between authors, contributors, and editors. It's nothing more than showing respect for other people's contributions.

To be honest, yes the license legality issue is fickle at best, but in the same regards it's heavily disrespectful to not acknowledge the work of others for the time and effort they put into the script testing and editing. If ponce took over libepoxy over at SBo from me, do you honestly think he would erase my 2015 copyright notice? No he wouldn't because that would be not only illegal, but immoral and extremely disrespectful.

Sorry, but even though I don't agree with certain licenses, we all have to uphold and respect them.

Problem Exists Between Kitchen And Community. :confused:

These two statements are quite revealing, unless you really are stupid enough to believe the effort was solely to get a screensaver running. Just pathetic.