Changing the world through execution

In teaching strategy, I always note the tendency of us academics — as well as executives — to over-emphasize strategy development over strategy implementation. Now the world’s most famous open source developer — a 42-year-old Finnish-American father of two — is making the same point as he rejects accolades and perhaps even a €1 million Millennium Technology Prize.

The Register quotes the originator of Linux as saying:

One of the main reasons I think Linux came to be successful in the first place was that I never had very lofty goals. The goalposts for me were always a few weeks out - never some kind of "one day, this will change the world". It was much more pedestrian than that, and I actually think that's the only way to make real progress: one small step at a time, not looking too far ahead to see the details.

People like to idolize the "ideas" and "inspiration", but in the end, almost anybody can have an idea. Getting things actually done is where people stumble.

I couldn’t agree more. The article doesn’t mention it, but Linux was actually a latecomer to the Unix knock-off market: Linus Torvalds started Linux because he couldn’t get Minix to do what he wanted, and the various *BSD variants were clearly technically superior to Linux through most of the 1990s.

I found the Reg’s article by reading a Tweet® by my friend Matt Asay:

Matt Asay @mjasay

Torvalds: 'I'm no visionary'. Anyone can have an idea. Execution is what matters http://zite.to/HTAbGo <Changed the world by not trying to

Anyone who’s read the history of Linux and Linus Torvalds knows (as Matt does) that Linus didn’t set out to change the world. But he followed up his idea with good and consistent execution, and imposed a discipline on his bazaar community so that the contributed code met his implementation standards.

FSF seems to listen

In response to criticism of the earlier drafts of GPLv3, on Wednesday the Free Software Foundation announced a third draft of the proposed GPLv3.

Linus Torvalds, who hated the previous draft, seems to find this one much improved, particularly on the patent retaliation clause 7(b). While he seems unconvinced that it’s better than GPLv2, he’s now willing to consider migrating the Linux kernel over to v3.

Of course, more aggressively protecting free software users from software patents is one of the major goal of the GPLv3. FSF “licensing compliance engineer” Brett Smith notes that the latest draft was deliberately crafted to undercut the Microsoft-Novell deal and its controversial terms about patent indemnification.

The FSF claims is this is the penultimate draft — to be discussed for 60 days — followed by the final draft open for discussion for another 30 days. They really want this train to leave the station in 2007, whether or not everyone is on board.

Still, given the tendency of the FSF and its supporters to be ideologues (or “purists”) in opposition to the broader “open source” community, the willingness of the GPLv3 license developers to listen and respond to external criticisms is an encouraging sign.

Technorati Tags: GPL, Linus Torvalds, Linux, open source licenses

Linus again disses GPLv3

In an e-mail interview published Monday by Information Week, Linus Torvalds again expresses his preference for GPLv2 over GPLv3. He lists a number of reasons:

First off, I don’t even know what the GPLv3 will look like. I would be totally crazy to accept a license for my code sight unseen. I think people who just say “version 2 or any later version” on their code probably don’t care about the license of their code enough. Before I say that “yes, you can use my code under license X,” I’d better know *what* that license is.

He lists other points. He thinks the v3 drafts so far are worse than v2, including “glaring technical problems.” But then he gets to the rub:

Finally, the real basic issue is that I think the Free Software Foundation simply doesn’t have goals that I can personally sign up to. For example, the FSF considers proprietary software to be something evil and immoral.

Me, I just don’t care about proprietary software. It’s not “evil” or “immoral,” it just doesn’t matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it’s not a crusade — it’s just a superior way of working together and generating code.

He also notes that the GPLv2 is about enabling collaboration, whereas the changes in the GPLv3 emphasize what can’t be done (e.g., DRM support).

If the most popular GPL software isn’t going to adopt GPLv3, then it perhaps it is dead on arrival. This is also consistent with the hilarious (albeit understated) rivalry scene with Torvalds and Richard Stallman in the documentary Revolution OS.

Hat tip: Matt Asay and his Open Sources blog.

Technorati Tags: GPL, Linux, open source licenses, Linus Torvalds