[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx: Summary (Repost with a few typos corrected)

From: Gene Collins
Subject: Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx: Summary (Repost with a few typos corrected)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:49:48 -0400

Your answer to this question precisely demonstrates why ou need to do

more research.  Many blind users are successfully using pine from shell
accounts, and lately with the appearence of the speakup package,
directly from the system console.  Since the kernel sends all text that
is written to the console to the synthesizer when using the speakup
package, there is no text based or cursive based application under linux
that won't talk.

You are correct in one regard though.  In order for a blind user to use
newsgroups, email or the web to get help, one must have a working
internet connection, which is true for everyone, not just blind people.

Gene Collins

>At 06:52 PM 10/6/99 +0100, RobertM wrote:
>>I'm sorry to rake over old coals, but this has been REALLY bugging me.
>>Why can't a blind user, or anyone for that matter turn to the
>>internet for help, if thier web browser isn't working?
>Right now, alas, there are many environments (especially UNIX ones)
>where you can't easily do text-to-speech on an arbitrary program.
>For example, there's no good way that I'm aware of to get PINE to
>>I would assume they'd still be able to send e-mail ro read news, 
>I wish we could assume that, but we can't. However, with the Web
>browser, it's possible to read news, do e-mail, and more. Getting
>the Web browser working solves a LOT of other problems.
>>tend to be far more helpful than the web, which is all they could use
>>lynx for, and if they couldn't do any of these things
>>surely they'd be better off talking to thier ISP? 
>Depends upon what the problem is, and if the ISP understands (for
>example) how to fix a DecTalk. Most do not.
>>What you seem to be selling is support, 
>No -- that's only one of the things we want to offer. We also want
>to license and reuse the code for many applications. Putting your
>work under the GPL means that you are effectively foregoing ANY
>income from it and giving up all control of its evolution -- for
>good. Maybe you could get a little money printing books, pressing 
>CDs, or doing one-off consulting work, but the investment you'd 
>made in the work itself is gone forever.
>Also, a "selling support" model has another severe problem: the 
>better your work is, the more income you lose because people do 
>not need much support! We want to be rewarded if our code is good, 
>not because it is bad.
>We also don't want to "nickel-and-dime" users to death. A 900
>support line (besides giving most of the revenues to the telephone
>company) would be too expensive for many of our users, especially 
>those who were unemployed, underemployed, or elderly. And asking 
>for a credit card is equally awkward and inefficient. Better to 
>finance support from the sale price of the product.
>Finally, events in this forum have shown us that the GPL is a tool
>of spite and malice. It embodies the ill will of an embittered
>academic who resented the fact that his research was used in
>the real world -- by those who paid for it! 
>We want to do good for people; we certainly would not want to 
>subscribe to an agenda that incorporates such childish
>and destructive motives. So the GPL is absolutely out.
>--Brett Glass

reply via email to

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