The naivete and total absence of awareness of how things work in the Real World in this thread make me shake my head. 'Hey all, someone should write an open source version!' - sure, and in the mean while, those same people gush over some guy raising 300k for "the next generation code editor" who then barely manages to build something that works at all, let alone is an actual improvement.
Software is hard and expensive, especially software that has actual domain knowledge embedded, unlike the 1000th 'micro js framework for single page apps' and fads like that. All the hate on people and companies who make a living selling software (gasp!) is... well, there is no other word for it - plain dumb.
(yes, I make (part of) my living from selling software)
> If it was truely the easy to replicate cash cow some seem to be assuming, there would be competition all over the place; or a lab would get some intern to replace it in 6 months.
Okay, now I have to ask. Do you have any experience with interns at a university trying to write even, let us assume, a relatively simple and straightforward piece of software?
Don't get me wrong, I partly agree with you, nobody's going to rewrite the high-end scientific software in a weekend.
But you seem to be saying that's because it's too hard. What I'm saying is that the people with the domain knowledge (physics students, interns, PHDs, whatnot, even the computational science guys) are pretty much uniformly shit at writing software. It's a big reason why there's not a lot of code sharing going on in the scientific community: Shame. And that if it was published nobody would want to read it, and there's a rather big chance it would reveal fundamental research errors.
The real reason this "high end" scientific software is guarded so heavily is because the fact that they have other users than themselves, they know they are in possession of a unicorn.
Then there's the part where all the old professors have their (unreadable) scripts written for that ancient unicorn, so even if something better comes along, nothing's going to change much. And even if the students translate (read: completely rewrite and fix some longstanding bugs) those scripts to the modern software, the professors won't have anything to do with it because they don't want to learn the newer thing since they spent so much effort getting to know the arcane old thing (though they will claim they don't trust the new software yet).
Dinosaurs. People will wax nostalgic over having worked at (gasp) actual UNIX terminals in their university years. Except it was the year 1999 and you had to FTP to the one machine with a floppy drive to take your stuff home. Sorry I digress, but yaaaaay science.
EDIT: The proper way to handle this would've been to say "Hey! Your site license doesn't cover this. Please don't do it again, as we depend on that license revenue to pay our bills to write great software."
That's mostly the proper way to get people to not care and end up killing your business anyway.
> Someone that's selling proprietary software is
> acting like an ass, let's teach them a lesson.