"ds" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:402a79cb$0$70733$4a441750@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks for all the remarks. I learned a lot in only a few hours.
> Perhaps i overreacted, but mainly because in less then some minutes
> after my posting, everywhere on the globe, people started commenting
> on the product that we offer. No problem, but without even consulting
our
> site or downloading the shareware version ! (i know cause i monitored)
>
> It's a pitty that people do not seem to take time for a good critique,
> but make (mostly) negative comments on everything that's new.
>
I've had a quick look at your site, but like most people in the various
unrelated newsgroups you posted to, I am mainly replying to your posted
comments rather than your site or your software - I am not really in a
position to judge the software itself fairly.
> Today i did some research on relevant comments and came up with this:
>
> GMP is only free of copyright if you do not change the source of GMP
with
> your distributed package. Then you have to ask the consent of the
makers.
> You have to change and debug the code in order to make it work, so
therefore
> the "free" thing applies to "free time" not to the value of your time.
> (source: several experienced users, not my own experience)
>
Source: The Microsoft FUD machine, or perhaps SCO.
Back here in the real world, GMP is LGPL'ed. That means it is *never*
free
of copyright, you *never* have to ask the consent of the makers to make
use
of the software as stipulated in the license (which basically says that
any
software, under any license, can make use of the GMP library as desired -
however, if you make any changes to the GMP library itself, and release
those changes to others in binary form, then you also have to release the
source for the changes under the LGPL. Fair enough.), you *don't* need to
change or debug the code (unless you find that there actually is a bug in
it - in which case you have the power to change it yourself since you have
the source code).
Now, I'm not going to argue that using the GMP would cost more or less
than
your library, because you are correct in saying that starting to use it is
going to take some time, and for the non-hobbyist, that time is not free.
Which is cheaper will depend on the price of your software, the ease of
use
of the two libraries, suitability for their purpose, experiance of the
user,
etc. The term "Free Software" has never been about price (although that's
often a nice bonus) - it is about freedom.
There are plenty of areas where FOSS is the most appropriate, and plenty
where closed source is the most appropriate. But if you are going to
argue
the case for your software, then learn what you are arguing against rather
than blindly quoting "things you heard" that are obviously wrong.
> We support Windows as The Platform.
For people involved in work that might require multiple precision
arithmetic, Windows is not "The Platform". It barely ranks as "a
platform".
> Our library is quick and easy to install (10 seconds) has a full, easy
and
> quick Help file.
This is where you can score big time. You will not beat the GMP on speed,
features, functionality, or flexibility - claiming you can just makes you
look silly. But you *can* beat it on ease of installation, and ease of
use,
especially for smaller users who want something they can get into quickly
without reading large piles of documentation.
> We give unlimited direct forum access and we want to make this product
ready
> for some
> big users, so we will do everything to improve our library. That means
we
> make real
> interested users very happy, cause we make special functions, do testing
> etc. for them.
> For some this is not interesting, cause they are happy with what they
have
> got, no problem.
> We provide a richness of samples, but these are currently under review
and
> not on-line.
>
This is also very important - people will pay you for your help and
support.
> Currently we are working on a special C/C++ library for Windows.
> Release is scheduled. Current we support and share the Visual Basic
version
> and we
> hope we will get some media attention around that time too, cause we
think
> we
> developed the only full package for Visual Basic Library for Windows for
Big
> Numbers.
>
If I were you, I'd get the C/C++ library out fast. I don't think you are
going to reach a big audience with VB support (correct me if I'm wrong -
presumably you know your potential customer base). I think that most
people
interested in this sort of functionality will be either using large
mathematical or scientific packages, or using languages like C/C++ (for
speed) or Python (for HLL programming, and speed in some types of
application). As evidence for the lack of interest in VB programming with
multiple precision arithmetic, I cite the lack of an easy-to-find website
with a downloadable VB interface to GMP - it would not be hard to do
(since
the GMP can be compiled as a DLL), but still no one has bothered doing it.
I wish you luck in your business, and I hope you can make something of it.
But it pays to think carefully about what you write in technical
newsgroups - as an advertiser, you begin any thread with a big
disadvantage
and must be ready for condemnation - especially when you cross-post to
irrelevant newsgroups. Being rude, sarcastic, and writing plainly
incorrect
and biased arguments is not going to win you friends or customers. But
don't take it too hard (and don't take it personally!) - I doubt that many
of the people replying in this thread would have bought your library
anyway.
|
