Re: Possible inclusion in commercial support list

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:11 PM, edmund ronald <address@hidden> wrote:
> Could you guys avoid forking? Think of the children (users).
>
> On the other hand Inthink commercial support == > more users == > more
> contributors == > a good thing.
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2017, Pantxo <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> mbro009 wrote
>> > Our current plans are to make some significant additions to Thodica
>> > Octave. The maintainers of GNU Octave may consider the changes on a case
>> > by case basis and include into GNU Octave if they judge them as
>> > suitable.
>> >
>> > The specific bugs I refer to in my post above relate to how the Lapack
>> > routines ?gecon are called and the length of the work arrays required
>> > for
>> > real vs complex.
>> >
>> > Thank you for your consideration.
>> >
>> > Matthew
>>
>> Matthew,
>>
>> As an Octave contributor, I find it quite bold (but absolutely legal) that
>> you impose rules when it comes to have access to your source files. Don't
>> misinterpret me:
>> * packaging a different version of Octave for different purpose is a hard
>> work which I find normal that you want to be paid for and 30 USD is more
>> than reasonable.
>> * providing commercial support for using this version or whatever version
>> of
>> Octave is also fine.
>>
>> but from a "pragmatic" POV
>>
>> * fixing bugs you didn't even take the time to report is inefficient: if
>> ever we have access to your source files, it will be a harder work to
>> integrate your changes
>> * even though the GPL does allows you to ask money for your modifications
>> of
>> licensed files, I would definitely vote for *not promoting this fork in
>> Octave web site*.
>>
>> Pantxo
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Possible-inclusion-in-commercial-support-list-tp4681953p4682041.html
>> Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
Dear Matthew,

First, good luck with your enterprise.

It seems quite asymmetric that you request for a link to be included
when the Thodica site doesn't have a link to GNU Octave (only mentions
it).
I also see little benefit for the GNU Octave community in helping you
in your project.

- Thodica promotes paywalls.
- Thodica did not submit patches nor bug reports to the bugs they
purportedly fixed.

I guess we could be friends :D, but you should start by giving a hand
and not by requesting more.

My humble opinion.