rmusial

Faces of Open Source is ran by a photographer named Peter Adams. Peter coordinates with the subject of his photos (for example Linus Torvalds) and asks if they want to be a part of his photo project. Since Linus Torvalds doesn't mind the term Open Source he is happy to participate in this project. Since Richard Stallman does not like the term Open Source he would or has more than likely declined to be a part of this project.

It does matter because he would have to agree to participate and to sit down with the person who runs the site, Peter Adams, and let Peter take his picture(s).

Faces of Open Source seems to be a one person project (Peter Adams) who is a photographer and personally takes the picture of each subject. Since Ian has passed away I don't know how they would be able to be included. Also the site obviously isn't exhaustive since there there are thousands of people in Open Source and is always a work in progress being updated.

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

It's not the site's issue, it's Stallman. Even if they didn't intend for it to be a strict Open Source site, it has Open Source in the name which Stallman wouldn't participate in. The same way Stallman won't participate in (at least at the time of writing this comment) shows or conferences that only use Linux in the name and not GNU/Linux. For example he won't go to something like Ohio LinuxFest and the Linux Action Show had to rename itself the GNU/Linux Action Show to get him to come on. For some people the work of changing the name is worth it, for others it's not worth the hassle.

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."

The Open Source Initiative sees the GPL as Open Source, and the Free Software Foundation sees the ISC (OpenBSD license) as Free Software. Neither group's definition depends on if it is copyleft of permissive.

That so many people are asking "where is Stallman" on a site called Faces of Open Source makes be wonder how many of RMS' fans actually really listen to him. He loathes the term Open Source and sees it as direct attack on him and his Free Software movement[1].

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

This project send seems promising...

https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-smartphone-makes-major-strides...

I haven't had any recent issues. I know to support net neutrality they recently had a blackout of sorts (https://mastodon.sdf.org/@SDF/100254429655079937) and some thought it was an outage.

In my opinion that's part of the fun. SDF is almost like a unix system meets a MUD/MMORPG. You can read through some of the FAQs on sdf.org, but there is so much to just stumble on and discover.

Some fun first things are setup VOIP, check out anonradio, and type 'games' at your shell. Have some fun!

That's another thing I love, I've been on there since 2003 and I had no idea that was a thing.

Very cool to meet you world champion Nihil

SDF Public Access UNIX System - sdf.org

It's a free shell service, with paid addons. It has been around since 1987 and retains a lot of the charm of the BBS world. It does this while offering very modern things like Mastodon federated social media, SQL storage, VOIP, and has amateur radio, minecraft, and a ton of other stuff. There really is something for everyone.

I appreciate all of the stuff listed above, but what I personally LOVE most about SDF is that it runs on NetBSD and offers a ton of packages from all the different open source and free software communities. BSD packages, GNU packages, home grown packages.

It's just a very friendly and fun place. I am 'rmusial' on there too. Feel free to say hello!

I don't understand what you mean by that. 32% growth sounds a lot better than "damage control".

Also why are you posting things from 2017? Was there some news about Target that I missed?

This is from 2017 and it's also very incorrect. The author says Target's April 2017 policy was bad for their stock. Let's look in hindsight.

In March 2017 TGT was at 53.12. In April 55.85. In early June 56.90. It took a hit late June at 50.76, but by September was already at 59.96.

As of close today it is at 78.46 and they didn't reverse their bathroom policy.

Here are some funny quotes from the referenced post...

"I’m not anticipating an extreme drop in the share price, but I’m definitely not seeing any catalyst on the horizon for the share price to surpass its current trading range"

and "So, though it took a while to materialize, if you followed Crista’s advice to sell TGT stock late last year, it’s looking like a good decision now. TGT stock is headed in the wrong direction, and may still have greater depths to plumb. Good call by Crista!"

If you would've sold on Crista's advice to sell, you would've missed out 59.41 to 78.46 in less than a year!

As others have said, thanks for everything. I am a Patreon supporter, I would highly encourage others to support Matrix/Riot as well. I have been able to transition the vast majority of my personal and professional communication to Riot.im on Android, iOS, and web. Voice, video, text, memes, all of it. I know it has its rough points, but even non technical family and friends have been able to use it, getting off of the proprietary, nonfree alternatives. Thank you very much.

Vice News just did a story about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2S_4G103Ik

It's short and worth watching. It shows how the law could definitely be used in an unequal manner, the background, and how Doug Ritter and the Knife Rights group works with groups like The Legal Aid Society.

Correct, Google bought Android in 2005 but went back to the drawing board in 2007 when iPhone came out. Now Google has a chance to take some time and try some new things out.

Linux isn't capabilities based, or real time by default. Google likes permissive licenses. Android, while good, was a knee-jerk by Google in reaction to the iPhone. If you've got the resources of Google, why not try to build something in house that scratches some long standing itches and at the same time get ownership over the OS that could power everything from your phones to laptops?

From an August 23 email ( https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/2017-A... )

Over the past months efforts have been made to upstream the remaining LLVMLinux patches (http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org) and to address other outstanding issues in order to build a usable kernel with clang. To my knowledge upstream is in a relatively good shape by now for x86 and arm64 (I heard the same about PowerPC, but have no first hand experience), most of the patches are already in Linus' tree, others have landed in maintainer trees.

...

It goes on, but there has been some pretty significant work done, and you can easily compile with clang as your default cc with simple patches.

Thanks for this, this looks amazing

At least in my experience on several Lenovo laptops and even a 2012 MacBook Pro, OpenBSD has a much better GUI experience than FreeBSD, down to things like suspend and resume working with no tweaking required.

"Taking into account the numerous mistakes of UNIX. However, no one raises Plan 9 on a pedestal."

Suckless and cat-v.org would disagree. I'd also disagree since I'm a huge fan of plan9port.

OpenBSD supports encrypted user mounts and full disk encryption

1) The main difference is in their approach to security. OpenBSD's primary focus is a complete, open source, BSD system with a focus on security. The way they attempt to and often succeed at achieving that goal is through "code correctness" and emphasizing the use of integrated cryptography. That isn't to say FreeBSD is insecure, it just isn't their primary focus.

2) I'll let Theo answer that... http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=132788027403910&w=2

3) Not "big issues". But since OpenBSD doesn't sign NDAs to get firmware or drivers, and since they like to rework any software that isn't up to their standards, they do lag behind in hardware support. A good way to check if what you have is supported is to read their release notes. For example https://www.openbsd.org/60.html has a list under "improved hardware support".