Sigh... you are only required to make changes available under the GPL if you redistribute the compiled binary, and you are not required to notify the original source of your changes.

Efficiency does go up at higher light intensity, but the fact that the device must track means that there must be more horizontal space between the collectors to avoid shading. The assertion that less land will be needed would require a dramatic improvement in efficiency to overcome the handicap of increased inter-collector spacing. Variation in light intensity usually causes problems in photovoltaic array conversion efficiency. Thus, issues such as inter-collector shading and non-uniform concentration lead to reduced overall efficiency, often by far more than the affected area. It would be nice if non-imaging concentrators could be used as they could be placed closer together in still configuration rather farther apart as the moving trackers have to be placed. However, the severe variation of intensity generated by non-imaging concentrators usually makes them impractical for photovoltaic applications. So, saving on photovoltaic material does not also mean saving on land.

While I agree that these types of announcements are overblown (they are talking about high-concentration PV here, which is not a good idea to put on roofs at all for structural reasons, and it only responds to about 80% of the available irradiance anyway due to being limited to beam radiation), the ROI is highly dependent on the economic conditions of the owner. Solar can payback fast if you are a large electricity user in the upper tiers of pricing even without incentives, and with incentives the banks are loving it today in many locations. If you are off-grid in a sensitive environment, you may have little alternative... what is the ROI on that? If you are living in a tiny home in a mild climate with no air conditioning, your ROI could indeed be prohibitive... but blanket statements about ROI are NOT "insightful", moderators.