The relationship between Slackware and BSD is the way in which boot scripts are configured. Otherwise Slackware is not related to BSD. Regarding the political and social issues, I don't think the Slackware maintainer is anti GNU/FSF although he tends to keep his personal opinions personal.
However, as PV has not imposed any BSD license schemes, I would venture to guess that PV is not anti-GNU/FSF.
Quote:
I'm academically interesting in learning more about how these philosophical differences came about in the FOSS community.
|
Throw ten people into a room and likely you will discover eleven opinions.
Quote:
. . . Slackware seems more lenient on what is "Free" and "Non-Free" . . .
|
I might have missed something, but I have not noticed any non-free software in the Slackware distro. Non-free with respect to the four freedoms, that is. Third party packagers might be different, of course.
Package selection is simply PV's opinion.
Quote:
. . . but Slackware keeps the vi compatibility mode by default.
|
PV is well-known for (rarely) patching or modifying source code. Yes, that sometimes is a stumbling block for new users.
Quote:
I find Slackware closer to BSD both in style and philosophy . . .
|
With respect to file system layout and management, yes. With respect to social philosophy, no. Most (all?) of the Slack packages are under the GPL.
Quote:
. . . and I don't believe in socialism
|
Because the original question in this thread is philosophical, I'll offer some observations. Philosophical socialism, as understood by the many 19th century advocates and philosophers, was based upon free association and voluntary exchange. What many people today call socialism is more appropriately called state socialism or politicized socialism. What many people today refer to as socialism is actually only another branch of statism. Statism is a philosophy based upon force and coercion and the threat of violence.
Philosophical socialists do indeed embrace communitarian ownership of certain assets, but they do not believe in forcing that type of relationship. Most of the 19th century socialist philosophers wanted their social system based upon free association and voluntary exchange, not force and coercion. Indeed, that force and coercion is the foundation of statism is what the socialist movement was all about. They wanted to abolish statism.
Karl Marx, and his followers, on the other hand, wanted to use the political process to abolish the social conditions they witnessed. That is, they wanted to use statism to abolish statism. Several social philosophers of that day envisioned the violent results of that theory, and 50 years later the tragedy came true in Soviet Russia and then later in Nazi Germany.
With that said, some people, confused by this inappropriate definition of modern socialism (aka statism), accuse the GPL of being socialist. This is incorrect. The GPL is based upon free association and voluntary exchange. That is, no person is forced to accept the license agreement. Every person is free to reject that license and develop their own code from scratch. However, if a person uses code from GPL licensed code, then they voluntarily accept the conditions of using that code. There is no force and coercion involved. The people who previously developed that code decided that they would not treat the code with any monopoly interest. The license holders legally are the owners, but they simply do not restrict how others use the code. The entire relationship is based up free association and voluntary exchange.
And the GPL allows people to sell their value-added services. The GPL has never stopped that. The GPL only treats the software code as knowledge rather than a tangible object. The GPL is designed to treat software as knowledge freely available to all people at all times. What people do with that knowledge the GPL does not pretend to know or stop.
Yes, people can live without the GPL, but I envision a better world with the GPL. Proponents of free software see software code as knowledge, not as a tangible object to be treated with the same approach used to protect physical property. Physical property is subject to scarcity while knowledge is not. And a system of sharing knowledge has served humans well for thousands of years. Only in the past three hundred years or so has the concept of "property in knowledge" taken hold. Previously humans survived well without such concepts.
Quote:
Even Torvalds has come out and said that he thinks the GPL is going too far.
|
Torvalds has only rejected certain clauses of the new proposed GPL 3 license. He has no objections to the GPL 2, through which he currently licenses the Linux kernel. The clauses he objects to in GPL3 concern digital rights management, and not the remainder of the revised GPL.
Is the current GPL 2 or proposed GPL 3 perfect? No, but the history of humanity is a journey of discovery, not perfection.
Quote:
I just think all of the people shouting "viva el software libre!!!" don't have a clue what a big business this is and what the effects of GPL are to them. They are just happy to get something for nothing, and don't care what happens after that.
|
This is far too simple of a conclusion. There are many system elements influencing how humans interact and exchange with one another. Some of the elements of the modern exchange system that few people understand include the concept of compound interest, monetary theory, land title distribution, flawed economic theories, etc. The bottom line is that computers significantly empower people to help themselves. This was a cornerstone issue with the early 19th century socialist philosophers. That is, that through the practices of statism, many people in that period were barred from bootstrapping themselves with respect to providing a living and pursuing a vocation/trade. Land title distribution was heavily controlled and manipulated by the political class. In a predominantly agrarian society at that time, a lack of access to land created a wage-slave environment. With a politicized monetary system, many people could not capitalize their vocations/trades with the equipment and tools they need to be more self-sufficient.
Little has change in the past 200 years. Much of the modern human exchange system remains controlled and manipulated. Because so much today depends upon computers, there is little wonder that many people respond with joy that so much software is available for free, both in use and price. People can learn computer skills without fighting monopolies and difficult theories such "intellectual property." They can empower themselves.
This is especially true today in developing regions of the world where many people have been barred from bootstrapping themselves because of the politicized social system. When land, labor, and capital are all manipulated, the people in those regions are faced without an ability to empower themselves. Thus, the popularity of the free software concept in those regions today.
The issue is not about exchange price, but about empowerment. I suspect RMS is far keener about social issues and the human exchange model than many people appreciate. I think he limits himself, however, only to software issues, but I suspect that he has a much broader understanding and appreciation of social issues that most people. He tends to alienate some people because he is ardent and has drawn his proverbial lines in the sand, but human history has never been changed by those who embrace the status quo, but always by those who stepped outside the box and dared to be different. Disregarding the past 300 years, the philosophy RMS is trying to embrace with his concept of free software---a philosophy that sharing knowledge benefits all humans and not just a privileged few---is a philosophy that served all of previous human history. The past 300 year is the exception to human history.
RMS is not encouraging a new social model, but trying to establish portions of a previous model. Only through much mental conditioning through public education and media do many people today not understand human history. I suspect RMS understands that history very well.
Quote:
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.
|
Yes, but I prefer a world in which we do more than mere survive. The current social system model encourages mere survival and Spencerian "survival of the fittest" nonsense. I envision the free software concept as only the tip of the iceberg with respect to significant social reforms. Reforms that are much needed.
Quote:
Microsoft will yet have the last laugh.
|
Only if people continue to embrace the flaws of the current politicized social system. That the free software concept is growing as a movement indicates to me that even the politicians cannot stop the inertia. Microsoft will not prevail. They will learn either to exist within a world where people embrace the free software concept or they will learn how to further manipulate the political system to advantage. My observation is that they have taken the latter route because they are pushing hard for stricter "intellectual property" rights and strict enforcement of digital rights management. This is the nature of all political systems: to manipulate humans based upon force and coercion rather than encourage coordination through free association and voluntary exchange.
With all that said, I use Slackware because I tend to dislike how most vendors think they know how I want to use my computer. PV does not assume that and outside basic scripts does not try to control how I use my computers. The learning curve is steeper with Slackware, but I would rather have my way than not. I'm willing to invest the sweat equity to configure my computers. Many people are not, and that is perfectly fine as long as they are willing to accept the choices made by distro vendors and maintainers.
Additional info:
FLOSS Will Not Fail---A Rebuttal
Why Free Software is Important