I agree with you totally Nathann. But William is NOT selling Sage. It's still free for everyone. You can even use SMC for free, including for using Sage.
William is selling a service that people obviously wanted, because they are prepared to pay for it. He is making money from that service (or rather, he will). ANYONE, including you can make money from a product or service that uses Sage. The GPL does not in any way prevent this. William doesn't personally own Sage, nor does he claim to. How on earth can William pay Open Source developers as he has intended to do for something like 10 years now (without real success), if he isn't allowed to make any money to do so, and he isn't allowed to pay to support himself whilst he works on such a project? You understand that he cannot just give all his research, teaching and administrative time at his current job to his SMC project without there eventually being consequences right? If part of his time is taken away from that job, he HAS to pay himself somehow. The more time he takes away from his job, the less time he has to write research grants to buy himself out of teaching, to hire graduate students and postdocs, to get time to do research and get promoted, etc. He is making very real sacrifices, and has for more than a decade, for Sage. And you are seriously telling him he should not be entitled to remuneration? Seriously, how much taxpayer money are you wasting on Sage development? What percentage of your day is given over to that? Are you going to give the money back Nathann? Now we really want to know. If William doesn't have the right to be paid, nor do you. Bill. On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 12:29:32 UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > Hello Bill, > > There is something I apparently can't get through: whatever William > "deserves" for his hard work (and we all work hard, don't we?), he > cannot take wherever he pleases. Selling drugs, prostitution, or > blackmail would not be morally "right", whatever you think he > deserves. *I* believe (please respect that) that it is not right for > him to take money by selling Sage, for Sage is not his work but a > collaborative work. He does not own it (though he started it) because > dozens of others did their fair share since, and he does not plan to > pay them equally. > > And yes, again, it is legal. Look at the newspapers, and you will get > a good idea of the difference between legal and right. > > I don't think I ever said anything different than that. > > Nathann > > On 16 February 2016 at 12:20, 'Bill Hart' via sage-devel > <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > Nathann, yes, I think William deserves it. Sage would not exist without > > William, everyone knows this. That was certainly my point. But I've also > > known William for years and he has spent a lot of time searching for > ways to > > pay Open Source developers. For example, he and I submitted a proposal > to > > Microsoft in about 2010 to pay a developer to port Pari to Windows 64. > We > > were successful in that, but it was a tiny amount of money. > > > > William has applied for many grants, with a very recent NSF one being > > denied. > > > > William has approached big companies, like Microsoft, Sun, Boeing, the > DoD > > and others, in search of funding, over a period of years. This has had > very > > limited success. He's also approached various successful individual > > businessmen, looking for interest in investment. > > > > He's worked so ridiculously hard to get a sustainable source of funding > to > > pay developer salaries so Sage can achieve its aim. He finally has such > a > > mechanism, maybe, and you are complaining about it like he's trying to > do > > something dishonest or undeserved. > > > > I don't know what ideology says that he wouldn't be entitled to draw a > > salary from his part or full time job, which I expect in the future will > be > > at least partly maintaining SMC. > > > > Moreover, if that takes over all his time so that he is no longer able > to > > research, teach or otherwise perform his duties in his current job, > would > > you still deny him the right to draw a salary from what is occupying him > > essentially full time? If so, you are mad. You'd really prefer to see > him > > starve would you? > > > > I not only think that William might pay himself from SMC in the future, > but > > that he should, if it is successful. He will need the money to buy > himself > > out from teaching, I would imagine, at the very least. he has a family > to > > support you know! > > > > There is NOTHING stopping you from starting a company which makes money > from > > leveraging Sage in some way and paying yourself. If you can come up with > a > > product or service that people are actually prepared to pay you for, why > > not? The only reason you haven't done so is either because it doesn't > > interest you, or you haven't come up with such an idea, because you > aren't > > William. > > > > I'm sure sagemath.org advertises SMC and vice versa because they both > > benefit one another. If you had a product or service that complemented > Sage, > > I'm sure that too would be advertised on the website. And I'm pretty > sure > > you too would mention Sage in all your advertising. > > > > You understand that either Sage or SMC alone are worth less than Sage > and > > SMC together. It's actually possible for the two together to be worth > more > > (either in dollar or in code or mathematical terms) than the sum of the > two > > in isolation. Both projects *should* leverage each other. This is > obvious. > > > > I think your complaints are invalid and disrespectful. > > > > Bill. > > > > On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:34:24 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:17:37 AM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote: > >>> > >>> > https://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Freedom-of-Information > >>> > > >>> > SMC tax filings are public information, and these filings are > detailed > >>> > enough > >>> > to see if there is any pocketing of money going on. > >>> > >>> Now I get a notion of what you call 'more or less straightforward'. It > >>> was a good joke. > >>> > >>> >> He said that he would never pay himself with SMC money ? > >>> > > >>> > he said that the proceeds of SMC will go towards improving Sage. > >>> > >>> Oh. Well, paying himself to work full-time on Sage can certainly be > >>> understood as using SMC money to improve Sage. In my understanding, he > >>> will probably do it eventually. > >> > >> > >> so in your eyes William working on Sage while funded by the taxpayer is > >> good, and > >> William working on Sage while funded in some other way is not good, > right? > >> So you declare that you are against the latter, and will not facilitate > >> this, right? > >> (sorry, I have a sensitive communist bullshit detector, and you are > >> triggering it over > >> and over again...) > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
