[deltaonefour]

> Well he could answer with whatever his reasoning is that may or may not align with the things you suggest. People take that seriously, including me.

He could've but the GP knew he was starting shit by asking that question. Don't expect people to take the high path when you're trying to mess with them. Seriously, if a cop is about to arrest you and you spit in his face don't be surprised when the cop knocks your teeth out when nobody is looking.

>You can answer to justify your decisions without being a jerk

Definitely. The problem here was GP was being a jerk and trying to make wolfram look bad by inciting a reaction. He succeeded but who really is the true ass hole here?

>But maybe I'm so naieve to have seen people respond in a reasonable way

Sure those people who respond that way are socially savvy. They know how to manipulate the situation to make themselves look good. Wolfram CLEARLY is not that type of person. But does that make him an ass? Nah. Shutting down a jerk who asks a insidious question like that is not the best response but it's an appropriate one. An eye for an eye.

[harry8]

Two points:

1)Stephen Wolfram is not a police officer and has not been spat at in the face.

2) You don't know the tone of the question and neither do I. The question is obvious and expected and deserves an answer in such a context.

[deltaonefour]

Two counter points:

>1)Stephen Wolfram is not a police officer and has not been spat at in the face.

That's right I hold stephen to less of a standard than police officers. Police officers should uphold a law and stay neutral. If you're not a police officer and someone insults you, there's no need to stay neutral. A retort in return to an insult is 100% viable.

>2) You don't know the tone of the question and neither do I. The question is obvious and expected and deserves an answer in such a context.

The true intent of the question can be deduced from the content of the question itself. The tone is irrelevant in that case. The answer to the question as I repeatedly said is obvious so the question was asked not for an answer... the question was asked as a deliberate attack. That is the only logical explanation given that the answer to the question is 100% known by the asker.

An attack DOES NOT DESERVE an answer.

In fact any additional tonality that went along with the question would be manipulative. The asker can use deceptive tonality to disguise the question as innocent but we know clearly from the content of the question that it is an attack despite the tonality.

Everyone and I mean everyone knows why mathematica and windows is closed source. There is ZERO need to ask such a question; that is unless your intentions are insidious.

[harry8]

>Everyone and I mean everyone knows why mathematica and windows is closed source.

Nope. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone knows why any other person has made a complex decision unless they say, and even then we're assuming they're being honest and sometimes people lie for PR! [1]

I'm of the opinion that anyone turning up to speak at a licensing conference and refusing to talk about the licensing of their own stuff is heroically silly. I mean just wow. Anyone not anticipating being questioned about their licensing in an open question time or who can't handle an "attack" at a percieved disconnect between words and actions about licensing at a licensing conference probably shouldn't be there or indeed out in public. Responding with no substance and a personal slur (which is what is reported here, but I haven't confirmed) is really, really, weak and poor at best.

[1] For example Wolfram's company isn't listed and he can't spend the money he has made, making a very different decision framework for him from the CEO of microsoft, beholdent to the board representing the shareholders. Which was also the framework that made Solaris into OpenSolaris, arguably far too late to preserve SUN wealth. These are difficult and complex decisions that people are very sure of and frequently get very wrong even from a pure wealth-maximisation standpoint.