On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, daly <d...@axiom-developer.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm also curious about honest *opinions* about how people in the Sage
>> community would feel about a company making potentially gobs of money
>> selling support contracts? What balance between profit and giving
>> back to the community would be appropriate? What services might be
>> offensive, and what would be OK?
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> * I could see how some people might be annoyed if there were a Sage
>> version of EPD (http://www.enthought.com/products/epd.php) that fully
>> supported Windows (say), even though Sage didn't, and cost
>> $199/license. On the other hand, perhaps a $199 Sage-for-Windows
>> might be better than no-sage-at-all for Windows for free.
>
> The downside is that you begin to compete with MMA, Maple, etc.
> commercially. Can Sage compete on a level playing field? If I
> am going to give my research away should I write it in Sage or
> MMA? Which one will give me a larger audience?
Well _you_ should write in Axiom, of course. :-)
Even with a company, Sage will always have to remain 100% free, due to
the GPL. So Sage will never be competing on a level playing field
with the Ma*'s.
> There is the question about where the profit would go. If
> I do the research and you make the money it seems a little out
> of balance.
Yes, this is the main question I"m asking.
> There might be limitations on "free". For instance, a
> Windows port might use proprietary software to make Sage run
> well on Windows. There are a few people in Sage who are quite
> passionate about GPL-ish issues and this might lead to a fork.
If you mean that GPL-incompatible components would be added to the
Windows version of Sage, then this would violate the GPL. Not only
might there be a fork, there would a copyright violation.
> Keith Geddes (Maple's version of William) had to choose between
> being part of Maple management and being a professor. He decided
> to be a professor. I've talked to him about it and it was not a
> simple decision on his part.
I had similar discussions with Michael Monogan (also Maple's version
of me?). The situation with Sage today is genuinely different than
the situation they were confronted with regarding Maple. The two main
differences:
(1) The Internet exists -- so distribution of Sage is trivial,
compared to distribution of Maple in the late 80's/early 90's.
(2) The GPL, etc.: the copyright on Sage is held by thousands of
people -- so anybody (even me) *closing and commercializing* Sage is
illegal.
Tom Boothby:
> If the money went to some Sage developers and not others, then I
> foresee some big problems, though. I don't know how this would be
> handled, and I assume that some people would get pissed off and leave
> the project over it.
Unfortunately this has already happened: money going to some
developers and not others, and people getting pissed.
Tom Boothby:
> > > * I could see how some people might be annoyed if there were a Sage
> > version of EPD (http://www.enthought.com/products/epd.php) that fully
> > supported Windows (say), even though Sage didn't, and cost
> > $199/license. On the other hand, perhaps a $199 Sage-for-Windows
> > might be better than no-sage-at-all for Windows for free.
> Is this option GPL-compatible?
Something close to it is, e.g., you can't forbid people to copy the
software. Redhat does this:
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
See, e.g., "Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Desktops or Workstations:
Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year)... $49" . So for $49 I
guess you get nothing but a disk and a warm fuzzy feeling. I didn't
realize until just now that Redhat still sells cheap individual linux,
but evidently they do.
-- William
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
