Stallman isn't a face of open source, as he frequently claimed so himself. He is a face of free software[1].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

I still think open source is a subset of free software, and Stallman deserves a lot of that credit.

Agreed, Linus is at the top and his Kernel uses Stallman's license.

Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen's license, or at least the license they started. It's all of our license now, I'd think.

It's the other way around, "Free Software" is a subset of open source

Depends on how you set up your space. :)

EDIT: I was mistaken about BSD not being considered Free Software, rmusial below explains the situation much better. Better examples of the difference are given in the link he provides.

Where are you getting that the BSD license isn't Free Software?

Look at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ISC

"This license is sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License. It is a free software license"

You can also find the "BSD" licenses on there but they are frowned on because BSD license (to Stallman) is an ambiguous term.

The Free Software Definition gives you the 4 freedoms[1]:

"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

Since the BSD, ISC, MIT, X11 licenses all give you the 4 freedoms, they are, by the FSF's definition a Free Software License. The GPL is also by the FSF's definition a Free Software License.

Since the BSD, ISC, MIT, and X11 all meet the Open Source Definition[2] they are Open Source licenses according to the OSI. Since the GPL also meets the Open Source definition, the OSI consider it an Open Source license.

If you read https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Stallman states that Free Software doesn't have to do with copyleft vs permissive: "Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL."

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [2] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Perhaps Stallman wouldn’t want to be part of a project with this name.

The number one face of free software, the one who spawned the creation of a whole open source UNIX OS is not there, it's really amusing how some decision like this could be made.

If I can extrapolate from his behaviour correctly, Stallman would refuse to have his face willingly associated with the term "open source", even if it cost him his photo on this webpage.

From the "about" page, this seems to be a one person project, where the photographer meets with the "face" to shoot the portray. While he may not have wanted to add rms to the gallery, the reverse can also be true: it is well possible that he contacted rms who refused (that would match with the guy's personality!)

Faces of Open Source, seems like the key bit to answer why.

And, as should be obvious, it's not an exhaustive gallery of faces of people involved in Open Source.

I think we all know why Hans Reiser isn't there.

His filesystem was revolutionary and open source and should be mentioned in there - in fact I'd still go to him if I needed a filesystem. I would not go soliciting marriage advice though :(

More seriously, I think it's wrong to sanitise technological and scientific history when afterwards it's decided that someone isn't a good person. Footnote to that effect; sure. Leaving them conspicuously absent, less so.

edit: though, as the photographer is seemingly taking the portraits himself, I can imagine some devs are easier to get to than others.

He's on the other website, Mugshots of open source

I like Stallman and I think every software developer owes him credit. But no way he wouldn't include a manifesto about why open source isn't enough.

He's been unpersoned.

And what happened to comrade Trotsky?

I heard he got axed while he was on a business trip to Mexico.