Slashdot Mirror
Tridge wins 2005 Free Software Award
johnsu01 writes "The Free Software Foundation has announced the winner of the 2005 Award for the Advancement of Free Software. The winner, Andrew Tridgell, wins the prize for his work on Samba, the Linux kernel, and rsync. In his work on Samba and on a free software client for the proprietary version control system previously used by the Linux kernel hackers, Tridgell furthered what has been an important goal of the free software movement since the founding of GNU --- analyzing ways for free software to interact with the currently widespread proprietary systems so people can more easily move away from those systems."
Now was this award for his work on SAMBA or his smallish part in the whole bitkeeper debacle that led to git?
I truly do appreciate everything SAMBA has going for it and hell, hats off to Tridge, but is it kinda weird that FSF gives him this award after being almost blamed for the bitkeeper diplomatic breakdown? (especially with how vocal RMS was regarding bitkeeper's use in Linux development)
Oh, come off it already. Linus was playing in a minefield by using BitKeeper and trusting Larry McVoy. If Tridge didn't step on a landmine, someone else would have. Kudos for him for doing what he does best.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Is there anything else besides a big certificate and getting your name popularized? Just curious.
No. He didn't force them off anything - he gave them a Free tool to use instead of a proprietary one. BitKeepers creator was the one who forced them off BitKeeper.
I want to make a car-comparison here, but it's been done too many times by now. Instead, I'm just gonna ask moderators to mod you down, troll.
"The open-source community" is not a coherent whole in any way. Andrew Tridgell was not a licensee of any BitMover software. He just happened to work in the same place as one. No licensee of BitKeeper was working on that until after it was revoked.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
McVoy had a license agreement with individual people, that's it. Whatever that "open source community" is you speak of, if I may myself call a fringe part of it for the sake of argument, Linus et al. surely did not represent me when they chose to go with BitKeeper in the first place.
This is all moot anyway, since the FSF never denied that it sees itself outside of any "open source community", so they would not be part of any commitment of this community to McVoy.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
This was actually awarded ages ago (OK, more like a week ago) at the GPLv3 launch. I happened to be sitting one row in front of where he was sitting when they called him up (which was kinda neat, I guess). I never did get to see what the actual award was there because the thing was rolled up, and he never unrolled. So it's nice to see the picture on the website.
I'll have to check to see if I have any pictures of the award ceremony. I think I might have one of him actually holding the thing. However I haven't gotten around to dumping my camera yet, so I'm not sure.
They should also be announcing (any day now) the winner of the FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, which was also awarded at the GPLv3 launch. If I had been paying closer attention, I could tell you if it was Wikimedia that won, or Wikipedia. I think I also have pictures of that award being accepted.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
They're actually significantly more productive using git than they were using BitKeeper. To some extent, this is because more people are comfortable using git, so there's more uniformity of process. To some extent, this is because git is faster for some critical processes. To some extent, this is because people have tools for git tuned for their own use (because they can). To some extent, this is because people continue to work on the maintainability of the kernel, so productivity improves over time, tools aside.
As far as I can tell, the switch took a lot of Linus's attention, so nothing got done on putting changes in for a month, but development continued approximately as before, and then there was a period where Linus was applying patches blazingly fast, because they'd been developed and tested while he was doing git (and he designed git so he could apply and commit patches faster than 1/second).
In all seriousness, though, I just set up a diskless router based on OpenBSD that saves its state to flash using rsync. So these awards are spot-on, at least as far as I am concerned. And on the heels of Samba 4, too. Great work, tridge!
Logging in and typing "help" IS using the software. Please at least get familiar with the major details before saying something did or didn't happen
as you yourself pointed out, he telnetted to a port and typed "help". that no more binds him to the license for the software than i am bound to sendmail's license if i telnet to it's port and play with the available commands. If I were to telnet to a public port on a machine a friend owns and play around with the commands available to me, and it happened to be the port bitkeeper runs on, how does that make me subject to a license i've never seen and never agreed to?
Tridge was considered to be bound by the licence because he was working for a company that was granted a licence.
Tridge was considered to be bound by the license by Bitkeeper's assertion. I've never seen anything that said OSDL agreed to any licensing terms involving Bitkeeper or that Linus was allowed to agree to licensing terms on behalf of the company and its employees. Linus was bound by the license and he was the one granted a license. Unless you can provide some documentation to support that OSDL had agreed to any licensing terms with Bitkeeper, I cannot see any way that Tridge was bound to any agreement with Bitkeeper.
If I was to consider myself legally free to make copies of MS Windows software purchased by my workplace it would be just as stupid as those who are saying Tridge didn't break the licence.
show me anything that says OSDL purchased any licenses for Bitkeeper. Show me anything that says the licensing agreement between OSDL and Bitkeeper bound all of the OSDL employees to its terms, even the ones who didn't use it.
Your analogy also fails on the fact that Tridge never possessed a copy of any software made by Bitkeeper.
Please bother to actually read the entire previous post where I mentioned Samba.
Actually i did read what you said about Samba. I fail to see how Tridge violated any licenses creating Samba too.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre