I think this is a very good point. I'm very reluctant to pay money for a Linux binary. The problem that very often bites is that most Linux distros aren't really concerned about binary compatibility and in one or two releases time, my binary may well not work anymore. I would pay for non-redistributable source though, assuming there was no open source alternative. This seems like a fair way to buy some software, and actually own it without having to buy it again some time later.
I suspect the reason why this doesn't happen is that the commercial vendor would suppose it would make them vulnerable to reverse engineering and maybe patent litigation.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a very good point. I'm very reluctant to pay money for a Linux binary. The problem that very often bites is that most Linux distros aren't really concerned about binary compatibility and in one or two releases time, my binary may well not work anymore. I would pay for non-redistributable source though, assuming there was no open source alternative. This seems like a fair way to buy some software, and actually own it without having to buy it again some time later.
I suspect the reason why this doesn't happen is that the commercial vendor would suppose it would make them vulnerable to reverse engineering and maybe patent litigation.