Sigh...

0) I run Slackware Linux as I wish, for my purposes.
1) I have studied Slackware Linux and adapted it to my needs. I have access to the source code. I consider the exceptions listed at FreeSlack insignificant.
2) I have redistributed copies to family and neighbors.
3) I have contributed (A very small contribution, but a contribution nonetheless.) to the improvement of Slackware Linux and the Slackware community benefited.

So basically only item 1) makes Slackware Linux non-free according to the FSF. I see the FSF as basically a one man propaganda machine not the all encompassing authority on what is or is not free software. I don't disagree with those four items listed above but I am not going to exclude useful software simply because it does not meet guidelines set by the FSF. I see no practical benefit in "sanitizing" Slackware Linux outside of feeling good about using free software as defined by the FSF. My feel good is using Slackware Linux, a stock Slackware Linux and building on it, not striping it down to meet some idealogical goal.

Except the FSF defines what is free software so they are the authority.

And what follows has nothing to do with what my reply was about. What you wrote in your recent post is your opinion about the similarities and differences between the FSF's definition of freedom and yours. That is much different than what I responded to:That is a foolish statement I would only expect from someone who does not have the faintest idea what the subject is about. Your last post is a good argument that leaves me wondering why you made the previous one. Unless it was meant as a joke and I missed the humour?

So since I don't buy in to the FSF Philosophy I am labeled as ignorant and I suppose now foolish. Oh I do have a clue, I just don't agree with it. Free software cannot be compared to free speech or freedom. It really can't be compared to beer either.

It a nice idea, but not a realistic one. That said, the FSF does do some great things.

It's a nice idea that is the founding and the bases for what you use hence the source code download right next to the .iso download on Slackware's web site.

I can't remember the last time I download an ISO image of Slackware Linux.

Yes, the source is there, it's also here on my server. Yet Slackware Linux according to the FSF is not free, so having the source code available is just not relevant.

The idea that is a nice one, is that "all" software must be free in accordance with the FSF. I seriously doubt that goal with ever be reached. I don't use Slackware Linux because it's free, I'd pay for it, in fact I have paid for it many times. I use Slackware Linux because it is simple and easy to understand. I could remove that "non-free" stuff but why? What would I gain from it? I have tried a lot of distributions over the years. I have always gone back to Slackware. That last time was for good. No sure how long ago that was, but it was within the last 15 years or so. I have been using Slackware since the early nineties. Of course if our Slackware Linux BDFL decides to go "free" then by golly I'll bee free too. At least until I install my other programs that I use that are not "free".

Before the discussion quite deteriorates into pointless license wars, I'd just add a few notes to the original topic.

Freedom should not be taken lightly even in a world of software. By using non-free software you leave yourself and to a some degree others (by net effect) in reliance to other subject and its (ill) will. You leave yourself vulnerable to be anytime fucked up in the future. Freedom means independence, unrestricted choice. Unfortunately many people can not think in a wider context or time frame and trade immediate small benefit for decades of disadvantages.

Slackware does not prevent you avoid non-free software completely, it just does not lead your hand. I'm aware it may be difficult in some cases like with firmware blobs and appreciate projects like FreeSlack will point that out. It would be enough to split and move packages with non-free software to a dedicated repository, so we would end up with base, extra, testing, pasture and non-free. Installer would put some warning to a user. But that kind of reorganization would require insignificant amount of work for sure. This leaves the question: who would do the job if Slackware devs would accept this intent ?

1 members found this post helpful.

FreeSlack started out as a documentation project, but now we basically provide a fully libre Slackware derivative OS. We always felt that this distribution deserved its own name. By the time FSF advised us that FreeSlack looks/sounds a bit too similar to Slackware, we already had our preference set on Freenix. Our old domain remains active, but the official front is now set up at http://www.freenix.net. We just started moving and re-branding, so things will definitely keep changing in the coming weeks.

3 members found this post helpful.

Just curious, how exactly was this a problem? No issue with changing the name, but with all due honestly the FreeSlack name was clear and easy to understand given the origins, Freenix is not.

1 members found this post helpful.

I was wondering this as well.

You can read the saga here: http://www.freenix.net/forum/index.p...oto=15&#msg_15

We always liked the name FreeSlack and we still do, but we also like the new name even more. Being certified by FSF was never as important to us as retaining the creative control over the project, which includes the control over the branding. If we didn't think that Freenix was a better name, and were forced to make a choice, we would remain FreeSlack, albeit un-certified. The new name is meant to invoke the traditionalism of the UNIX brand, as we think of Slackware as one of the UNIXier GNU+Linux distributions out there. Additionally, more distinction does not hurt in our case. We are organizationally independent from the Slackware project, and we would like to stress that with our branding (although given our meager effort to replace the upstream branding, you could easily think otherwise).

But while we are very happy to go ahead with the new name, this experience convinced me at least that the FSF's approval process is a little too subjective for comfort. I already pitched to them my ideas about treating the name similarity objectively in the name of not pissing off applicants. We also kicked off a brain-storming session concerning an alternative to FSDG: some kind of guidelines for evaluating just how likely the software is to abuse the user behind her back, or even in the plain daylight: http://www.freenix.net/forum/index.p...&th=8&start=0&

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, but as was already covered in the discussion "Freenix" is such a generic name that its already been taken.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenix/

This is just confusing now that there are two unrelated Freenix out there.

Additionally, that guideline the fsf enforced on you only shows that the fsf is entirely worthless and not trustworthy...especially given that "Freenix" has the same issue as its name is identical to a non-free distro based on ubuntu...

Also, its worth pointing out that "Freenix" is entirely pointless to look for in a search engine given numerous unrelated results while "Freeslack" is not. I think I will just continue referring to your work as "Freeslack"...

While I think FSF was a bit heavy-handed and unbearably slow in how it evaluated the name FreeSlack, I don't think it was completely out of touch, and this decision was definitely in line with their stated policy. At the same time, we agree completely with FSF concerning Freenix being OK, since sourceforge.net/projects/freenix is not out there, meaning, they never seem to have published anything, and that since 2013. Just because someone captured a little bit of namespace on one code-sharing site, it doesn't mean there is any potential for confusion. No one will be confused because they don't actually have anything, and their search engine exposure is not great.

1 members found this post helpful.

You won't be alone Internally, we will continue using FreeSlack more or less the same fluid way as before, and our freeslack domains are here to stay We are not letting go of the old name, but only adopting a new one, better suited in our view for the rapidly changing scope of what was originally a pure documentation project.

We are also confident Freenix will get indexed as soon as in a couple of weeks. We literally took the axe to the website today, so no wonder it's not on the radar yet.

P.S. It's worth adding, it's not like FreeSlack is trouble-free, namespace collison-wise. Besides freeslack.com being taken already for a Micro$oft free slack-related blog, we also get a lot of Slack-related pollution in the search results. If anything, we expect better resolution with Freenix on the long run.