The net effect looks the same because you're still only accepting that it's someone else's job to do the accessibility. I will agree, however, that our approach, our policies now enshrined in law and regulation, have been based on the assumption that it can only be someone else's responsibility. But, this is a false and unhelpful dichotomy. Please notice that there is no equality in the situation you cite. With Microsoft code, neithber we nor the government has any option but to plead with Microsoft to fix it, and to hope they actually do. Neither we nor the government are so encumbered under the GPL. So, for example, the government could decide, under 508, to purchase an inaccessible X application, with a part of the purchase agreement providing a certain amount of money to a third party consulting firm to program the accessibility in before delivery. Remember, it has to be accessible when delivered, not when purchased. On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Charles Crawford wrote: > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -- Janina Sajka, Director Technology Research and Development Governmental Relations Group American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Email: janina at afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175 Chair, Accessibility SIG Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF) http://www.openebook.org
