The continuation of your analogy was not that the farmer cannot be paid for his labour. Nothing prevents that, but if he modifies the free potato, his modification is also freely available to other farmers.
That is the opposite of free software. People are free to use, distribute and make changes to the software, as long as the altered version is also free.

And even that statement is more restrictive than FSF's definition. This describes copylefted software. Leave off the last clause for their definition of free software.

@Randicus - anyone who modifies Libre copywrited software is REQUIRED to redistribute it for free, according to the Libre community, in other words the Libre community gets to restrict my freedom of what I doing with "free" elements and subvert my labor, simply because I used Libre labeled software. Doesn't sound like a free choice to me, sounds like a restricted choice to use, modify or attempted to distribute the modified software originally marked Libre. Which would mean that I can't use a Libre kernel, since I can't modify it with the OEM blobs for my NVIDIA card features that nouveau doesn't offer, and then sell the laptop to another party, without removing the software. Seems like plenty of reason not to use Libre software. Stallman had the GPL and LGPL correct since I can "decide" to freely redistribute or freely choose to charge for my labor and contributions to the GPL software. That is part of the reason that I use ApacheOpenOffice rather than LibreOpenOffice. So back to the OP, thanks for agreeing that a Libre ISO of Slackware shouldn't be produced. I whole heartily agree!

This isn't always true. It depends on the license that the libre software was released with. What you're describing is what's typically known as copyleft (of which the GNU license is copyleft). But many open source/libre licenses aren't that strict, and in fact, many don't require the source code to be shared back with the original project and can become closed-source (although, according to most, if not all, licenses, they are required to state what open source software they used in getting to the final product). However, sharing back is usually encouraged, even if it isn't required. Here is an excerpt of wikipedia's entry on Libre.

Libre software can be free but can also be taken and closed off (depending on the license) as long as proper attributions are made. Look at AOSP or CyanogenMod. Both are libre software (assuming you don't add proprietary apps to them like the Google Apps packages) in that they are free for people to use and modify. But people are able to take that software and close it off (look at any number of manufacturer skins for Android devices like Touchwiz or Sense).

Another wiki paragraph (this time from the Free Software page) also states (my emphasis in bold):

Can you reference the writing of the "libre community" that backs up any of what you're saying? Cause either you're describing a group of people I haven't previously heard of or you're extremely confused.

If you want to use NVIDIA's proprietary video driver how is linux-libre preventing you from doing that? Presumably, if your wish is to run these things, you wouldn't use linux-libre in the first place. But if you were a particularly weird or masochistic person, I suppose you could get linux-libre, read the deblob scripts and put back whatever was taken out that you want. A weird thing to do, but nothing in the linux-libre license (which, by necessity of being derived from linux is GPLv2) would prevent it, or at least no more than a regular GPLed linux.

I really wish the English language was more precise. This article talks well about the differences between FSF, GPL, open-source, and Libre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alterna..._free_software

@thirdm: I believe if you read the early posts by Randicus you'll read he believes that Libre software must also be free when distributed after modification. Hope that is enough reference for you. And Randicus if you haven't said that in post #52, then I apologize for mis-characterizing your position.

I believes in free speech not free beer, so if I take the time to develop new or modify even existing software which I received by purchase or the free generosity of another developer, it is not free beer for everyone else to consume without my determining how my labors should be compensated. Libre software restrictions as posted by Randicus, would mean I'm forced to share the beer, because I got it for free and my labors are donated because I started with open source software. Taking another man's labors without his consent and against his will that's still stealing, regardless of whether it is an individual, group, or state!

Now, let's move back to the OP's observation... does it make sense to offer a sanitize Slackware. Fist I object to the word sanitize, that makes it sound like there is something wrong with Slackware included kernel, infected or defective, which there isn't once Pat and crew are done with it! Second, I don't think I would ever use a "libre-kernel" in Slackware because I want to fully use Slackware on any one of my 12 computers, including those that require some proprietary blobs that are offered free of charges by the hardware manufacturer (again their choice as developers to offer as free of charge). I want a kernel that is able to accept both open-source software and closed source software when it comes to the hardware choices that I've made. I often don't have a choice in what hardware is included in the old laptops given to me, and I don't have access to test the hardware that is supposedly "free" approved. By the way simply setting standards like "free software compatible" is actually an abuse of the English language again, because if the certified standards was IEEE or FSF or BillyBob it is still a standard which is a specification, which by definition is a restriction. Using the "free" in front of software program name is a canard, a false pretense to make one think they are getting free beer. So open-source is good, GPL is good, LGPL is good, but Libre with restrictions/encumbrance on my re-distribution is a oxymoron, since I'm not free or at libre to distribute my labors as I choose. Slackware is open-source which is exactly as I like it and support it, financially and philosophically.

2 members found this post helpful.

And that is *exactly* what *you* would be doing, if you start with GPL software, which has, up front, a statement of its authors' consent and will, and then you modify and redistribute it against those authors' consent and will.

The GPL principle is simple -- share and share alike. If you don't like that bargain, keep your hand out of the GPL cookie jar. Other bargains are available. You have plenty of alternatives that are more practical than filling a Slackware message board with your opinions about the GPL.

3 members found this post helpful.

Nevermind..

Libre (or free) software gives these freedoms to its users.
These are the definitions taken from the GNU page:
If you develop your software solution from scratch, you have a choice to make your product free (to the users of the software) or not. It is your product, so you dictate the terms. If you take Libre Software and modify it, then you have to ensure that the users of your modified software keep the same Freedoms as you have yourself (see above). If your modified product is only going to be used by people you know and/or control (say, within a company) then you do not have to share your modifications outside that group. If you decide to share your modified product with the world, then you will have to make your source code modifications available to the world, in order to comply with the rules of Libre Software.

There is of course the LGPL. You can write software and keep the source code closed even while linking dynamically to Libre Software, as long as it is licensed with the Lesser GPL.

This is not a matter of taking away your freedom as a developer. It is about guaranteeing the freedom of the user!
You can take someone else's code and modify it, in that case you are bound to the prior terms. No one will keep you from writing a product from scratch and keeping the code hidden!
Also, bamunds seems to see this as theft of work? The only requirement is that you make the source code freely available to people who request it, but there is no restriction that says you are not allowed to ask money for the binary code. Suppose you write a nice piece of software, based on others' GPL-ed code. You ask money for your product, for instance because you can provide services along with the product. You only need to make the sources available to those people who have access to (i.e. have paid for) your product. You do not have to upload those sources to a public server. Of course, the people who paid for your software will have then all the Freedoms that come with Libre Software, so they will have the Freedom to upload your source code to a public server. But you can still create a business model out of this. Look around you. Lots of companies make money out of software that they release under a GPL license!

4 members found this post helpful.

Of course, you realize that "Libre" software is any software covered by the GPL, right? That is to say, there is no distinction between GPL'd and Libre software.

Speaking of the GPL, you should probably read it, since it contains some clauses which are apparently against your beliefs: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. Or you'll find it under /usr/doc/*/COPYING on any of your Slackware installations.

AlienBob has given the references that are necessary to understand the flexibility and choices that are allowed with GNU, GPL and LGPL. On that same page is the following:
"Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so."
While the freedoms can't be parsed individually, they also can't be limited to single individual or group definitions to drop phrases either. Like the United States Constitution the whole article is the whole article, not just the pieces an individual would decide to select while ignoring the remaining clauses.

As stated in the GLP v2
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."

The one thing GPL v2 does not require me to do is to give the software code away for free, which in the Libre philosophy stated earlier seems to be a restriction not freedom.

Again, I don't think a version of Slackware with a libre-kernel is necessary, since the process for installing the libre-kernel is documented for those who don't like closed-source binary included on their computer.

I do find this educational for all those who misunderstand the concept of free-software meaning freedom of speech not free-beer.

1 members found this post helpful.

Well of course it's not "nececessary", but it is surely desirable, if only to users who abhor non-free software, be it on ethical grounds or out of sheer paranoia.

I agree that the kernel package is not a big issue. The real practical problem lies with the slackpkg repository: there is no official stance on how much non-free software belongs there, and the slackpkg tools themselves are agnostic about licensing. Unlike building a kernel package (a finger snap in Slackware), rolling a full, up-to-date repository is not something an average user can afford. A libre flavor would remove this hurdle by either providing a libre repository, or by writing a libre mode into the slackpkg tools.

I take the simplistic and monetary approach to this. I don't "have" to pay to install or use Slackware. Therefor it is free. I really do not give a hoot what the FSF thinks. I find this all sort of amusing. I find the chart on the FreeSlack page showing the non-free software in Slackware64 humorous. Nothing listed requires that I fork out dough to use or install. Aside from voluntary expenditures I have not laid out a single sentimo for Slackware. Incidental cost such as internet, electricity, purchase of MT DVD's etc. do not count in my book. For me Slackware is already Slackware-"libre".

Anyway that's my

Except in this case free =/= cost.

1 members found this post helpful.

Why take pride in demonstrating ignorance of a topic? It is one thing to state one understands something, but disagrees with it. It is quite another thing to demonstrate ignorance, believing one is making a definiative statement.

3 members found this post helpful.