Uh, Linux and its derivations drive over half of the computing power in the world, yielding insane productivity gains for people of all classes, races, ages, and geographic locations.

I think that speaks for itself.

Thanks for missing the point, uh. Explain exactly which of Torvalds actions that together created $150 billion of value. How many billions was uploading the Linux kernel to ftp in 1991 worth? How many billions was created when git was launched?

There's no missing the point. Torvalds developing Linux rocketed productivity which as any economist can tell you is worth a lot, lot of money. The scale at which the Fed is pumping money into the economy hoping to get a fraction of that productivity should tell you how much its worth.

You disagree with economic principles and productivity. That's fine. There's nothing to continue to discuss, then.

TBH my original comment skirted the line on trolling, mostly because of its terseness. But it's a genuine thing to consider unquestioned, unstated assumptions like the idea that an inventor is entitled to a percentage of every single productivity gain everywhere that results from their invention, regardless of the incremental cost to them. You can see the discussion elsewhere in this thread about that. But maybe on your own time you can consider why you accept and defend this principle which so obviously benefits rich people and powerful corporations the most.

Thought experiment: we discover a whole new planet the size and population of Earth that just happens to run x86 computers, but no Linux. We introduce them to Linux, which can be copied onto every single one of them at essentially zero cost. Should Linus and co's fortune instantly double? Do they deserve a "cut" of every single person's productivity gain, forever, everywhere, in perpetuity?

This is the principle we are discussing.

Linus isn't worth billions of dollars, so probably not. I imagine his net worth due to residuals would increase, and yes, he would be deserving of it.