Slashdot Mirror
Linus Shares the Millennium Technology Prize
udas writes "The Millennium Technology Prize is awarded every two years for a technological innovation that significantly improves the quality of human life, today and in the future. This year, Linus Torvalds, Linux's creator, and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, maker of a new way to create stem cells without the use of embryonic stem cells, are both laureates for the 2012 Millennium Technology Prize. This prize, which is determined by the Technology Academy of Finland, is one of the world's largest such prizes with candidates sought from across the world and from all fields of technology. The two innovators will share over a million Euros. The final winner will be announced by the President of the Republic of Finland in a special ceremony on June 13, 2012."
And your contribution is?
Thought so.
If you were around before Linux had a mascot, you'd remember that there was a lot of criticism for choosing a penguin as the mascot. For a variety of reasons.
Stallman would argue the open source movement has actually held us back and I think Stallman is right. Certain industries (largely commercial software operations and hardware manufacturers) have used proprietary software in ways that harm our community. Our software is harder to use today than it needs to be. Not because free software is hard to use. it is because of the proprietary software we have let in. This can be attributed to the open source proponents. I'm not going to put down the open source proponents as I think there is some middle ground. However Richard Stallman and the free software foundation recognise some middle ground as well. This is why we have licenses other than the GPL which are promoted by the free software foundation in certain circumstances.
While my company doesn't follow the wishes of Stallman perfectly we do hold up to scrutiny by him and the foundation for the most part. We have been rewarded financially and succeed in ways that hundreds of companies which have come before us have failed or moved on. You may not know this company yet... although there is a lot more awareness of our existence today than I could have ever imagined a few months ago. We have done almost zero marketing. In any case you will know us in the coming months and years. We are the next Redhat. We are literally creating a competing the foundation for free software to prosper through company policies. This is making it possible for GNU/Linux to compete on a more level playing field with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe.
If I sound like a pompous self righteous ass hole keep in mind I have been fighting for a long time and am not someone who gets recognised / appreciated like RMS or Linus. That isn't to say the results of my efforts are not appreciated. It is just few know who I am or what I've done. My work is uninteresting and largely of a less technical nature. There are a lot of people like myself who are not well known making a difference. Both technical (developers) and less technical (business, art, translation, promoters, etc). Part of what I do is find ways to fund the less known projects that have no good means of generating funding.
Stallman's "You're either with us, or against us." ideology would be completely toxic in a leader of a project like Linux.
That's your mistake right there. First, your mis-characterization of Stallman's attitude does not reflect the spirit, and the very practical effect, of the GPL, at all. And second, Stallman's role and influence is not one of a leader of project like Linux. Different roles, different attitudes. You simply reaffirm old saws like "oh he just set out to do something useful without caring about such a nasty thing as ideology". My point is, and I re-assert it: without Stallman and his founding principles (call it what you want, I don't care), there would be no Linux, and without his dogged persistence and his very active and pro-active role as maintainer of the GPL, Linux, and the whole free software eco-system, would not have survived.
I should have said it better: Linux, by sharing his prize with Stallman, would multiply the value of that prize, for both of them, by a factor of one or two magnitudes. He would make history.
I never mentioned the GPL in my post. I said his ideology. The GPL is a (very good) product of Stallman's ideology, but his ideology is much larger than the GPL. And it very much is an ideology that refuses to compromise and refuses to work with others who do not agree with the ideology. There's nothing wrong with that, it just prevents a person from successfully leading a project like Linux.
And that's what I said, as well, but when the GP said:
I assume that's also what they meant, that Stallman could create the GPL and champion the cause of free software, but he could not successfully be in charge of Linux. And you said they were wrong, which led to me saying you were wrong... So who exactly is wrong here? :)
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
I think you are wrong and here is why: RMS has made it pretty clear that as far as he is concerned the GPL V2 is completely broken and therefor only GPL V3 should be used, yet Linus won't license the kernel under GPL V3 nor will any of the devices mentioned like phones, TVs, and the bazillion other embedded devices that use Linux be using it right now if it had been under GPL V3.
The problem is when it comes to RMS like a lot of groups that were also originally started with good intentions such as PETA and Greenpeace as time goes along and he doesn't see the world adopt his beliefs he is becoming more and more militant. Read the man's own words in for instance the GPL VS LGPL debates and its quite clear that all those that say "The GPL is an infection" frankly would have a supporter in RMS because that is what he wants. For him its no longer about making good software that you are free to modify but about pushing an agenda and while i'll get hate for saying this frankly in the last 5 years his anti-corporation stance has become IMHO almost Marxist in his hatred of corporations. Read the man's writings and you'll see a progression from optimism to a lot darker vision, even going so far as to refuse interviews unless you use HIS language the way HE declares it to be which if that isn't the height of arrogance and self importance i don't know what is.
So I'm sorry but Linus would have gotten along just fine without RMS and in fact if it would have continued to follow RMS instead of refusing to go GPL V3 like he did then I have no doubt Linux as we know it today would be all but dead as the corps simply would have went with BSD or some other OS that didn't actively fight them at every turn. Linus could have easily used the existing BSD tools and I doubt Linux would be all that different than it is today and I'd argue the simple fact that so few of the mainstream projects are adopting GPL V3 just shows that RMS no longer speaks for the majority, if he ever did.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.