Janina, I will agree with you that GPL and open source do provide a dynamic difference from Windows based apps to the extent that we could get a group of engineers to rewrite code to make an app accessible, but the larger question is how much good does that really do with respect to the affirmative duty of government to purchase only accessible software? What is the real difference between Microsoft telling government that golly we will fix it in the next release and some Linux developer saying accessibility is a breeze as soon as someone steps up to the plate and volunteers to rework my code. The net effect is the same. So the solution from my point of view is to require that the software be accessible out of the box and nay interface issues be resolved before the government buys it. From this model, it is much more easy for the Linux developer to incorporate the access up front especially with gnome. That is the advantage I see to Linux apps. As far as AFB and NFB and whoever not appreciating the difference, it is a very different model from the normal business world. Yet we should understand that the rules of business do apply. Whether software comes from Microsoft or Chucks software garage, it must perform what it represents itself to do and in that context, the GPL is irrelevant. I think we are basically in agreement, and we just need to understand the dynamics at play in this world of leveraging law to advantage accessibility. -- charlie Crawford.
