Nathann, you make accusations stemming from you being clueless about ways US companies operate, requirements for US tax reporting, etc. It is more or less straightforward to verify how much a company makes (it gets complex with big companies of size approaching Google, but it is irrelevant here).
I think you owe William an apology, as you basically call him a liar, accusing him of pocketing money earned by SMC, even though he always maintained he would not do this. On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:22:11 AM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > Hello Bill, > > I have to admit that answering your mail is more satisfying that > answering others. I started this thread to promote a needs_review > ticket (Eric Gourgoulhon went there since), but the thread became a > collection of attacks from people that cannot hear simple things like > "William makes money from Sage". Funnily, I am the one who is > considered as a troll here even when he created a for-profit company > (which would be sufficient in itself to make my claim). > > At the very least, discussing it in long/constructed emails gives the > appearance of a more respectable activity. I surely can use that. > > > Nathan, you started this thread with words like, "....help william earn > more > > $$ than he has now ". > > > > You are making a claim here, that William is personally making money for > > himself from Sage. If you make the claim, it is up to you to prove the > > claim. So, what is your evidence that William is now paying himself > money > > from SageMath Inc on top of his salary at the Uni of Washington? If you > > don't have any evidence of this, you don't have a right to make such > > complaints. > > Technically, no I do not. It's not because he will be cashing money > next month or next year that he is not making money. He is making > money because he is getting paid subscription to a service whose main > contribution is to 'make Sage available'. > > Now, he is also earning money as he said himself on the recent thread: > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/45q7j1/sagemath_open_source_is_now_ready_to_compete_with/ > > Monthly recurring revenue is currently $5K and server costs are $3.5K. > > 1500$ is of the right magnitude for a salary: I'm paid 200euros a > months. If things go well, in some months he will be making by selling > an 'online Sage' as much as I do by working.... (partly on Sage, for > free). > > He made the claim, however, that he had been losing money until now: > for this reason, it would not matter in the least if he were using > this money for himself as it would just cover what he already lost on > his personal money. > > And then, some time from now, he will start earning a 'net benefit' in > the same way. > > You will not know, I will not know (unless he makes it public), but > then he will start earning money off Sage, the product he 'makes > available'. You will probably agree with me on this point, for in the > second part of your email the points 1) 2) 3) are actually meant to > show that WIlliam *deserves* it. Because he started it, because he > currently sweats on it, etc.. > > I do not doubt that William sees it the same way: he started it, he > tries to promote it, he worked a lot on it, so why wouldn't he earn > money with it ? So it wouldn't be fair to tell me that I have no proof > that he is making personal money with it, when you yourself suggest > that: > 1) He has the means > 2) You think that it would be fair > > Thus, I think that you and I agree on: > 3) He will, when SMC will earn enough > > My problem, here, lies in the other points you raised. > > > Secondly, as you have worked out by now, SageMathCloud is not Sage. > > You cannot say that, because here the confusion is deliberately > maintained: > 1) Sagemath.com is a SMC website > 2) William's company is SageMath Inc. > > I also remember a discussion about getting funding from some > association for Sage (which if I recall correctly ended up paying for > Mathematica licenses), when it was clear that the money would be spent > on SMC. > > This very post, whose title is about Sage, turns out to be an > advertisement for SMC: > > > http://sagemath.blogspot.fr/2016/02/open-source-is-now-ready-to-directly.html > > So no, you cannot say that "SageMathCloud is not Sage". Of course they > are different, but SageMathCloud's main advertised product is Sage. > And the name of the for-profit company is SageMath. And the website is > SageMath. Those are hints people have to take. > > > SageMathCloud is a generic service for running Sage, R, Julia, writing > PDF's > > collaboratively, and running a huge variety of other open source > software. I > > personally have and pay for a SageMathCloud account. I have never used > it, > > as far as I can recall, for running Sage. I have extensively used it for > > writing pdf's and have used it for running Julia, Flint and other things > I > > work on. > > This previous paragraph, I take as a convenient evasion of the truth. > Look at what SMC promotes, and you will see what they sell. The name > of the company is not JuliaCloud, and you cannot try to say that it is > a coincidence. William's blog posts are about Sage. > > > 1) Sage is one of the pieces of software that can be run on SMC. The > better > > Sage is, the more students will use Sage, and some of those users will > use > > SMC. Some of them, or more likely their professors, will pay for SMC > > accounts. So improving Sage will very indirectly help increase the > revenue > > SageMath Inc makes. So you are right on this point. > > Thank you for conceding it. > > > 2) SageMath Inc is William's company, even if he isn't currently paid a > > salary by that company and even if he is currently still trying to make > back > > all the money he lost on SMC while it was getting started. But > conceivably, > > SMC eventually does well enough that SageMath Inc might make enough > money to > > pay William more than he is currently earning. Definitely possible. Just > not > > happening now. So you are right on this point at some level. > > Thank you. > > > 4) He might be able to one day pay you more money to work for him than > your > > (really) crappy University salary. Who knows, SageMath Inc might really > > become successful, and William might actually be able to hire people. > Who do > > you think he will hire? Homeless people with no coding experience? No. > Like > > Google he will hire recruiters to ring you up every year and ask you if > you > > want to come and work for the multibillion dollar SageMath Inc > conglomerate. > > It may be odd to people at first, but I am not attracted to money or > to personal rewards. And the 'promise of a reward' does not tempt me > nor changes my opinion on what happens. Here, I do not complain that I > want a share of William's money. I complain that he is selling > somebody else's work. > > It is very simple: you said that william started this thing, that he > worked a lot of it, that he has worked on it for years, spent nights > on it, that he had other things to do but found the time to work in it > still, that it became great in the end and that it is partly thanks to > him. > > Yes. I agree with that. Totally. > > But Sage is not William's. The same way that it is not mine. It would > not exist without William: it would not exist without all others who > contributed to it (and still do, though William stopped since). Except > for starting it, many of us have "worked on it for years, spent nights > on it, that he had other things to do but found the time to work in it > still, that it became great in the end and that it is partly thanks to > him". > > William is not the sole author of Sage, and Sage is still being > developped. And you agreed that when I worked on it, I incidentally > contributed to his for-profit company. > > That's my only point. We all sweated on Sage, to contribute to the > common good by working on a free software, sharing code useful to > others. We all do it for free and generously with our time, but > William is now trying to convert this free generous collective work > into cash. > > > My advice to you would be this. If you really feel strongly about this, > do > > not contribute anything at all to SMC. Keep working on Sage and pushing > it > > forward, but have nothing to do with William's company. Just work on the > > Open Source software you love, which William is NOT selling, and just > refuse > > to have anything to do with the company William is running, which is > making > > all the money for him. > > "SageMath Inc's main (paying) product is to make Sage available" (as > is obvious from the name and advertisement of this company". I will > keep on saying that SageMath cloud sells Sage, even if it does not > distributes tarballs but makes it available through a website for > those who don't want to install it themselves. > > I cannot ignore the fact that by improving Sage I create added value > for SageMath Inc (for-profit company), and so I will restrain from > certain kinds of improvements in Sage. I will keep on working on the > [Graph Theory/LinearProgramming/Combinatorial Designs/Hypergraphs] > librairies as I did for years, which I need and love. But as I said > previously, I was tempted to improve the documentation that is the > most important to novice users who meet Sage as a general-purpose CAS > and this I will not do anymore, only because SageMath Inc exists. > > And I will contribute this time to some other thing that nobody tried > to capitalize on yet. > > Nathann > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
