I don't want to turn this into a GPL thread. But yes, I can understand some of the doubts about the GPL license and how to turn FOSS into a money-making device. Quite frankly I think that the only way to make money is to sell services and not software using this business model.

There are genuine problems because while you are not obligated by the GPL to release your source code to all and sundry (people who aren't your customers and don't have the binary) (i.e. if it's Commercial app under the GPL) if your customer demands the code you cough it up.

Here's the crunch:
The problem is that the customer of yours can easily put it up for free download on his site or make minor changes and sell it also, thus competing with your own version. THe only thing is that GPL forces him to release it under the GPL while BSD licenses even allow him to make it proprietary.

But still, GPL has benefitted the community at large because otherwise dead projects could be revived and it has safeguarded the interests of the developer and the community at large.

It shows by the way that developers do prefer GPL to BSD licenses when it comes to going the FOSS way because at least the code remains GPLed and future derivatives remain GPLed.

You see? This is typical of the "new age" Linux users I'm talking about. As a Linux user today, personally I'm genuinely concerned more about software freedom than about whether Linux will continue to be free beer.

Pragmatism changes according to convenience and the times. If we depended on pragmatism to keep the spirit of FOSS alive, it could easily die out.

Like it or not, what would keep Linux alive would be the politics of it. Technical merit can always be challenged by competitors. The Selling Point of Linux has to be the philosophy.

I don't agree with you that GPL has benefitted anyone other than the activists who support their nefarious agenda. I do agree with you that GNU has benefitted the hobbyist world greatly.

What marnold wrote is very interesting and actually quite counter-intuitive. The big lie with GPL is that it's about freedom- as we see, it's really about the freedom of the guys who GPL stuff to control what happens downstream, almost like a virus in the form of a license. But he said that he paid for Slackware- as do many people who support Pat's operation and goals. If people argue that free software is great because you don't have to pay for it, then what happens to make that software something that people believe in enough and want enough to cough up money to support it? This is the way it should be: instead of having stuff shoved down people's throats, a la microshaft (they make sure that it's installed by the manufacturer, so you have to buy it whether you want it or not) good software (as with good anything) actually sells on its own merits, even when you can get it for nothing.

ejem...
That should be "viva el software libre"

So what if it did? Software was sold before there was FOSS, and it will be sold after there's no more FOSS. We survived back then and we'll survive after that.

I don't agree with this at all. Philosophy doesn't mean anything to a guy running a server farm, or coding up some amazing new app. He wants something that works, that he can tweak, that he can even get into and gut if he needs to. Linux (and this isn't confined to Linux) is great for that because it's accessible. Torvalds did this because he wanted it. And OpenBSD is being done because Theo wants it. We are just the beneficiaries of some really smart guys who happen to let us into their party room.

If Linux or anything else can't survive on sheer technical merit, then let it burn.

That should be "ahem"...touche'

Noted and changed

I just realized how difficult this can become... it's not good to mix up politics and software developing, but it always gets that way....
I remembered when I used to code software to survive ... when I was in the university, that's how I paid my late years there. And when I had finished I just delivered everything and made myself clean of a proyect, and someone came to me and said something like "your application works great but.... it's not properly documented and you should do so".. and I thought "damn.... I'm a programmer not a technical writer... I never feel like documenting my software (no one does )". But ok, I went and did so, but it was a pain in the a$$ that I didn't want to go through, damn "regulations"

It's burning I believe even today. Thanks to attitudes like yours which have pervaded through the developer community.

You personally might not care about Freedom enough, maybe because of your culture. People in the First World take freedom for granted and probably don't realize how much it means to them until they lose it.

I think Free Software is going to be more popular in third world countries because of the ideologies rather than purely technical merit. Yes, technology does count, but it is a tool. Human beings are touched by emotion as much as by logic and people need something to hold them together.

Very interesting opinion which has really opened my eyes to the true nature of those users of Linux who act as its very enemies. My culture and upbringing find your views, quite frankly, utterly repulsive and cyncically despicable. You talk (and pride on) about lack of politics among Slackware users, but I find your views as extreme and as vehement as any of your imagined or real enemies.

I may sound like a fool talking about this issue today. Probably people would recognize the significance of this ten years down the line.

Microsoft will yet have the last laugh.

I just want to say that some of us in the U.S. are old enough to remember when it wasn't like this. When I was young, the concept of "intellectual property" would have been considered absurd. Nobody would have ever dreamed of patenting a test for breast cancer. Copyrights didn't have perpetual terms. (And in the beginning, software was free.)

I think an entire generation has been brainwashed.

Well that's all very nice, but I think you give me too much credit

No, it's just that I care about real freedom and I'm not a puppet for a bunch of activists, nor have I been brainwashed into humming their mantra or catching bullets for them. Come on man, get a grip! It's just some stuff that runs on a PC!

Why all the melodrama? It was you who started the thread, so don't start painting people as political. You were the one who wanted to know if Slackware could possible be anti-GNU. The whole thing is a big fat yawn for me. You wanted opinions, you got 'em.

No, they won't. We already agreed that stuff has to survive on sheer technical merit. Ain't they ain't got none of dat stuff.

P.S. I don't run Linux and OpenBSD because I'm some kind of religious zealot. I run them because I'm a programmer and I like a good working environment and a real operating system as opposed to the $hit that microslop spews out.

True, and I'm sorry if I sounded vehement. But I never claimed to be apolitical in this issue.

I don't mind people having responsible views. Have a different opinion - I don't really mind that, but what really concerns me is that the typical user of Linux today seems to have a disturbingly brash, don't care attitude towards these philosophies which built the movement while still using these tools and piggybacking on the sweat and toil of thousands of developers who were generous enough to contribute to the common cause. The least we can do is to show a mature and responsible attitude as a community of users and not indulge in utter trash-talk like "Let Linux burn etc. etc."

Its pathetic when some people talk about "Freedom" and say that the GPL opposes freedom. I've studied the GPL in depth and what it *does* do is balance the freedoms of the users and the developers in as ideal a manner as possible. Nothing is perfect, but the GPL is probably as near perfect to the balance as you can get. I've pointed out some flaws in the GPL, but if there was something better, it hasn't become popular yet.

It doesn't make people look tough or macho contrary to their belief. It makes them look like pathetic freeloaders. They still have the freedom to use Windows or proprietary software.

I believe in responsibility even when expressing views on the forum. I don't expect that everybody will agree with my views, but quite frankly, I'm not surprised at a bit of indifference, but I continue to be astounded that even experienced Linux users continue to harbour such hostility towards the underlying philosophies that built the OS as we know it today.

Probably... but I don't think so.
I see that this year, since the innumerable delays for the upcoming windoze Vista, MS is loosing some of the market audience and grip of the situation. There are people whom are not willing to update and would jump to linux, I don't think that Slackware right away, but likely to something more friendly and easy to get on as maybe Fedora or openSuSE or perhaps Ubuntu.
Have you guys seen a working copy of this Vista crap?
Even if you answer "No and I do not care", you should take a look at it. At least to see how the markets are moving and where the tendencies are going. Being objective, that thing is just a MacOS rip off, and Apple has answered with yet another OS "Leopard", which claims is Vista 2.0 but we know that all that is FUD and nonsense and most of what these two companies may offer we already have in our linux desktops since some time ago.
There are always a lot of politics behind business, and software is way too lucrative to be unattended.
Thanks to God and people like RMS and Torvalds we can enjoy an open operative system, though things tend to get sour without attention and even with it

Reading these words I have visions of sharecroppers hoeing (is that a word?) across the southern plains, living in tarpaper shacks while greedy landowners suck down mint juleps and dance away their days in grand ballrooms a la Gone With The Wind, or seeing vast legions of coffee bean pickers in shabby clothing, high in the mountains, working their chapped fingers to the bone to reach that last elusive bean while El Queso Grande (Raska did I get that right?) laughs ahahhahahaha while he examines a beautiful glistening cup of coffee stained with the blood of worker's hands.

Dude, this is just software and people sat in air conditioned offices and homes writing it. They drove cars to work and chowed down on Chinese food and pizza and even pounded a few cold ones from time to time. They didn't go through years of privation to fulfill some grand vision of a world in which everything good was free to all stratas of society, they were just humping out code (and usually getting paid for it.) These guys are not itinerant laborers, living in caravans, travelling from city to city with only their hopes and dreams, they're just normal guys doing what they like to do.

You want to turn this into some 1930s era Grapes of Wrath story when all it is is a couple of weirdos with an agenda trying to make sure nobody ever makes money coding. If you want to be their poster-child, rock on. I'm sure they wouldn't have to pay you because of your idealism, you would certainly risk anything to participate in this holy mission. "Beam me up, Scotty!"

If you're going to quote somebody, at least quote him properly. I said whatever doesn't survive on technical merits, let it burn. Don't try to twist my words.

The issue of software licenses is always sensitive. You may choose to turn a blind eye to the dangers of a world dominated exclusively by proprietary software. I have read too much by now to live in such a fool's paradise. I'm genuinely worried that the spirit is missing now in the community and we always assume there'll be more where that came from. Dangerous attitude. I prefer the Windows fanboy attitude to this one. Better pay for and use a proprietary OS in that case rather than keep living and imagining that there's some magic wand out there that creates free software for our benefit.

If you've written any kind of non-trivial software (I'm not talking about guessing number games ) you would probably realize how much goes into it and what level of generosity is needed to allow the whole world to take that code and use it for the common benefit of everybody involved rather than using it for your own benefit. Disagreeing with the concept is fine by me. But trivializing this generosity is as irresponsible as it can get.

It doesn't matter whether the developers sat and developed in air-conditioned rooms, whether they ate pizza while doing so or they got paid for it. The point is, they chose to release it generously so that anybody could use it, change it and benefit by it. If that was a "viral" infection, it was a great one which has led to advancement of software technology while keeping the big proprietary giants on their toes.

My view is quite simple. I think users should be informed and empowered enough to understand and make an informed decision as to what they're getting themselves into when they accept a license. I can understand users who are indifferent to the license terms, but not understand people who willingly accept the restrictions of proprietary licenses.

In some cases, the license may even be invalid in a court of law. Many users think that licenses are the final authority. Not so. Just like contracts, Software licenses can be challenged in courts of law just as much as regular contracts can. Unfortunately the large corporations rely on the fact that users just aren't as informed as they should be and intimidate them into accepting restrictive licenses?

Where is this leading up to? To philosophy and politics. You cannot effectively counter the restrictions and vested commercial interests of large corporations by espousing mere pragmatism. The big businesses can easily counter and challenge that threat. With a strong political and philosophical base, however - you can challenge that. That was what the GNU movement supplied - the political support for empowering the users of software and to challenge the growing power of the corporate interests in manipulating their customers into accepting more and more restrictions.

Ironically I think even this "pragmatism" is a philosophy in itself and its proponents are as vehement and rabid as the "Real" philosophers of the world.

Proprietary software has its place in the scheme of things and there will always be a market for commercial proprietary software. But what I do think is that it's crucial for Information Technology and Computer Science in general that Free Software continues to flourish and help in the free exchange of information and knowledge and protecting the freedom of the users. The existence of freedom is crucial for the future of software in general. Otherwise there would be stagnation and a rise in monopolistic protectionism.

Going back to the main topic, I think that Slackware is probably apolitical for a reason and it's good in a way to have one philosophy like Debian with its heavy political leanings and another like Slackware which doesn't. Both are going strong and both are widely accepted mainstream distributions.

yup, it is right. Though I don't know whom might be The Big Cheese