Re: Thoughts on a Wolfram|Alpha package for
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg101971] Re: Thoughts on a Wolfram|Alpha package for
- From: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:15:38 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Stanford University
- References: <h41f31$rfv$1@smc.vnet.net> <200907202321.TAA26029@smc.vnet.net> <27371444.1248261423587.JavaMail.root@n11> <h49514$q20$1@smc.vnet.net>
In article <h49514$q20$1 at smc.vnet.net>, "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net> wrote: > > My experience is that WRI is not a great help to 3rd party developers. Of > course, they don't mind users providing free software on MathSource. They > have a very different attitude between academic and non-academic people and > this overwhelmingly determines their response. > An interesting observation -- and one that's compatible with the licensing statements that occur on some of their products and web facilities (as megalomaniacal as they are unreasonable and unenforceable, IMHO). I'm a lifelong academic (42-year faculty career, 42 PhD graduates), In retirement I continue to do some personal academic research and related computation, and both in my academic career and post-retirement I did or do a minor amount of paid consulting. Am I a "non-academic people" when I do the latter. Am I supposed to purchase academic and non-academic copies of Mathemtica? Or pay the non-academic price for everything?
- References:
- Re: Thoughts on a Wolfram|Alpha package for
- From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
- Re: Thoughts on a Wolfram|Alpha package for