[tedsanders]

Could you explain why you believe this and why it applies to languages but not other tools? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but to me it seems fair that people should be compensated for the innovative work they do.

[natch]

I've done, and many of us do, tons of very valuable innovative work that we're not financially compensated for. There are other kinds of compensation, of course, and sometimes indirect financial benefits.

I just don't think the language will thrive as well as it could if the number of users is limited by a financial barrier. Sure, it will have users, and sure, they will find it useful, but a lot of its potential will go unrealized.

You could make the same argument with tools, so why are languages different? I think because they are more foundational.. other tools are built IN them not just using them. They become a substrate. Or not, if they're not widely used.

[carlob]

> You could make the same argument with tools, so why are languages different? I think because they are more foundational.. other tools are built IN them not just using them. They become a substrate. Or not, if they're not widely used.

What about the computer itself. I don't want to argue one way or the other but the hierarchy:

    Hardware (non-free)
    OS (sometimes-free)
    Programming language (mostly-free)
    Programs (sometimes-free)

seems pretty arbitrary.

[hexagonc]

I think the important thing about the language being free is that it is key enabling feature of the list you just gave. If the Wolfram Language truly was free then Wolfram Research should be able to publish and distribute a language specification and it should be possible for a competing group like, say the team that made Octave, to create a competing platform for the Wolfram Alpha language. Besides a few bells and whistles in the IDE, a piece of source code written in the Wolfram Language should be portable to any platform that implements the language specification. At least, that is what I would like.

I think the reason this isn't done is because Wolfram Research would have to really take responsibility for calling this thing a programming language. They'd have to publish their sources or at least the requirements for what qualifies as a valid source. They'd also have to publish their curating methods so that anyone with access to their sources and the language specification could produce identical results to identical source code. Basically, their position would be no more privileged than Microsoft's with respect to CSharp and the .NET framework. I don't think Wolfram Research wants to face a Mono-like competitor for their language and that is why portraying the language as some general purpose tool for everyone rings hollow.

[lmm]

We talk about "commodity" hardware, and I wouldn't want to program on any other kind. My computers may not be free-as-in-beer but I can buy compatible hardware from many different sources, and the standards are published so I could build my own if I had the tools to. If there were a published standard and multiple independent implementations of the "wolfram language" I'd be willing to give it a go.

[indrax]

Price (and the possibility of future price changes,) is just one aspect of control in walled gardens.

There are good reasons some people want to steer clear of any vendor lock-in. If there can be comparable open implementations, I'll use those. If there can't be, then the prospect is that much more alarming.

[natch]

Hardware is molecules, not bits.

[sejje]

What's the difference, in terms of this discussion?

They both have a cost.

[mightybyte]

The difference is that bits can be copied as well as transported for almost zero cost. The same is not true of molecules.

[dragonwriter]

Marginal cost of zero doesn't mean total cost of zero. If you can't recover fixed costs, there is a problem...

[taliesinb]

But your argument implies that all video and audio and text content should be free. But it's not -- we pay content creators to create it, and if we didn't, a lot of that content wouldn't get created.

[sejje]

So really cheap hardware should be free, too?

Who should take on that cost?

[jmj42]

Hardware (sometimes free)

http://www.sparc.org/

[bmm6o]

> I've done, and many of us do, tons of very valuable innovative work that we're not financially compensated for.

Arrangements in which you or others have previously engaged are not relevant, at least without an argument.

> I just don't think the language will thrive as well as it could if the number of users is limited by a financial barrier.

If this is actually your argument you should have lead with it. But it's not like Wolfram is new to the PL business, Mathematica has been pay since it was distributed on floppies and it has a large community. Making it free might make a stronger, larger community, but if you want to convince Wolfram to do that you'll need to propose a way to make up the lost revenue.

[jasonpeacock]

This is a platform, not just a language.

The same way that 'Mathematica' also has/is a language, but also a platform.

You can write whatever code you want, but you can only run it on their hosted platform which is not free to operate.

[georgemcbay]

Ignoring all of the politics of "Free Software" and/or "Open Source Software", as a practical matter languages that are not available in no-cost implementations are rarely successful outside of very niche markets.

Though, arguably, the type of stuff Mathematica is used for is already sufficiently niche that this is less of a concern.

[palr]

To be pedantic, Free/Open Source Software has nothing to do with the cost.