271 karma · joined February 26, 2013
Would a person stop donating $1000 of their expendable wealth to their favorite cause (e.g., hunger, cancer, cloning hitler, whatever) if that $1000 donation no longer reduced their taxes by $200 (for example)? If so, what kind of person would do that? Probably not the kind of person who ever donates to anything in the first place.
Worst case, if there were no more tax-deductible charities: that person would pay the $200 taxes and only donate $800 (instead of $1000) to their favorite cause. Best case: Megawealthy would no longer leave $20 billion to their favorite cause (be that their dog, the LDS church, their love of oil drilling, or whatever), but would pay $5 in estate taxes and only have $15 billion leftover for their love of oil drilling (or whatever be their whim).
SE was never "open source" in the standard sense, although almost everyone who licensed it got the source. In the very early nineties I was contact by people to say that what I'd been working on should be "open sourced" in the "free beer" context. I needed money to pay rent, put shoes on the kids' feet, and stuff like that, so didn't understand how to get paid for free software. They said "people will pay you to customize it, or to fix bugs" and I said "it's already ultra-customizable and I don't release software with bugs". I kind of get it now, and if I could talk to my old self I would tell self to open-source at least parts so that there was no reason for anyone NOT to use it. So now I'm working on inventing a time machine to go back and tell myself that and A LOT of more important things, but the time-machine work is going very very slow.
Finally, ScriptEase itself would have too many legal troubles being used by anyone, but I do believe just about everything needs a script language so it can be altered and customized and personalized and applied to infinite new purposes (and not a new one invented every week, just something boring and stable).
If I were to revive something from ScriptEase, I've often thought it should be the ideas behind the test environment around it. Where everything that can go wrong will go wrong and it must still survive.
BTW, it just occurred to me after writing that that one of the first customers to ever license our software, over the dozen years we were in business, used it to control a camera, while possibly our last customer (NASA) also used it to control a (much bigger) camera. JavaScript: it's a language for taking pictures.