On 2011-01-18, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 1/18/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Harig wrote: > >> Whether or not you actually agree with that economic reality is >> irrelevant. Those who fund commerical projects do; and, any developement >> tool which violates the security of the source is going to find itself >> climbing an uphill battle in trying to gain market penetration with >> commericial software producers. > > Of course. When I submit or commit patches, I am doing it mostly for > hobby, educational, and scientific users, and maybe website makers (who > make site I can visit). If commercial users piggyback on top, ok. I do > not know how many developers, if any, are after such market penetration.
You kind of over-extended the intentions of my comment. It does not apply to open source software in general. I agree that open source authors are not interested in the quantitative value of market penetration. However, I am betting that most authors of developement tools would like to be able to use their tools on the job. I am sure that more software developers would love to develop using Python as part of their job. For some this is a reality; but, many more are stuck using their employer's choice of language. One of the factors that employers consider, when they choose a language, if they produce retail software is that the process of compiling will sufficiently obfiscate their code. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
