[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx: Summary

From: Gene Collins
Subject: Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx: Summary
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 14:39:00 -0400

Brett, in plain unvarnished language, you are full of it.  Lynx has been
under the gnu license for a long time, and I as a totally blind person
have been using lynx for just about as long.  I've found the developers
of lynx to be more than responsive to my needs as a blind person.  For
you to expect that others who have written software and put it under the
gnu license to just hand it over to you for whatever kind of a fee is
totally irresponsible.  What blind folks really need is general access
to operating systems, and the wide variety of software they run.  Other
vendors have for the most part solved those problems.  There may be a
few blind folks out there who would make use of a special browser for
blind people, but probably not as many as you seem to think.  If you
don't believe me, go talk to the folks who wrote webspeak.  The last
thing blind folks need is one more programmer or group of programmers
who think they are going to balance their check books on the backs  of
blind folks.

In short, the gnu license is a reality, and you'll just have to live
with it, or not.  Complaining about it on this list, or other lists
related to gnu software probably won't generate much sympathy for your
cause.  If you are looking for something to develope and get paid for,
I'd suggest you do a little market research on your ideas, and then find
some venture capital to back you.  If they won't, then that's the way
the world turns.

Gene Collins

The above are my opinions, and in no way reflect the views of Iowa State

>At 01:38 PM 10/5/99 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>Please understand that I am misquoted in this message. 
>I quoted your words verbatim.
>>This message, and previous ones here, lead me to wonder why you think you
>>are qualified to build products for blind users? 
>Why did Richard Stallman think he was qualified to write an editor
>or compiler?
>Again, I now see that the malice we've encountered here is reflective of 
>the entire GPL community, which has as its primary aim the destruction of 
>markets and of programmers' livelihoods. It's a shame that Lynx fell into
>the hands of this malevolent group.
>--Brett Glass

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]