Our then-novel ideas now turn up not just in math software, but in applications as well as operating systems. User interfaces incorporate live animated feedback instead of dotted outlines, direct interaction instead of dialogs or configuration files, a functional rather than demanding starting point for new users, context-driven help, and in the best cases, minimal preference settings. We didn't patent the ideas or the algorithms; rather, we wrote about our goals and methods, and encouraged people to take the ideas and run with them.
So if the complaint is just that the source code isn't free for anyone to copy, rebuild, and redistribute, then give us a model for doing so. It needs to be a model where we can cover the cost of ongoing development by professionals; the calculator has evolved in the past 10 years, as have operating systems. Paid support isn't a good answer, as that would reward us for making crummy rather than excellent software; we want users to feel empowered, not dependent. And the idea that students or schools could or would pay for support contracts is silly.
Ron has never turned down a reasonable licensing request. Getting students to learn and enjoy math is the goal. But letting other programmers recompile our code isn't interesting, nor would that really move it very far on future platforms. Better that developers learn from our interface designs, deduce our algorithms (or just ask us), then build better software on the next generation of computer platforms.
If you are bothered that you can't recompile our ten year old application yourself to fix a bug, then you really aren't in the target audience we are aiming to reach, nor are you among the people who will deliver the next leap forward in software design.
Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?
