> Hi Aaron, > Perhaps RedHat needs to familiarize themselves with 17 U.S.C 121. > Individuals with a provable print disability can legally accomodate > themself, or optionally have some other provider (bookshare.org, NLS, etc) > do it for them. This does not require the permission of the copyright > holder. This of course is only applicable to persons within the U.S. If > you are outside the U.S. then whatever copyright provisions are made by > treaty apply. Given that RedHat Enterprise server is now a DOD COE > section 508 are applicable as well. There are > support/training/documentation requirements in section 508. > > Now, as to RH 9 and speakup.... In reading over the 2.4.20-ac releases I > recall that Alan Cox decided to pull speakup support. It was a > "technical" call on his part. His determination was that it didn't belong > in the kernel. This is my recollection at least. He put it in in the > first place and later revisited that descision as a mistake. So, with > that said, the argument then shifts from moral questions to technical > ones. If access cannot be done in user space that needs to be brought > forward and fixed. But that solution is a technical one, not a moral one. > I do not know the technical issues and what approach is best, workable or > optimal and so I will not judge his descision. I leave that to those who > are willing to buy into the argument with him through sweat equity. So in > short, RH 8 shipped with a "stock" kernel that happened to include > speakup. Speakup has since been dropped from the "stock" kernel and > therefore does not appear in RH 9. Of course RH does not ship "stock" > kernels, they "add" features, turn some on and others off (not remove!). > > So, in summary: > 1. RedHat has legal obligations for accomodation and cannot prevent some > unilateral actions by the print disabled community > 2. Speakup appeared in RH 8 because it was in the "stock" kernel > 3. Speakup was removed from the "stock" kernel with 2.4.20 final. > 4. The descision to remove speakup was made by a kernel maintainer for > technical reasons. > 5. Those with the skill and the time can argue with that maintainer and > provide patches that will bring speakup in compliance with what he thinks > "should" be in a kernel, or at least comply with what he would accept > being in a "stock" kernel. > 6. I wrote Alan and thanked him for the inclusion of speakup in 2.4.18. > I was disappointed at it's removal subsequently. I feel that the kernel > needs to provide some accessability features either "always on" or "on > demand" and that it should be part of the mainstream kernel. That itch > however is not adaquately strong that I scratch it. Is yours? > 7. RedHat shipped RH 9 in their normal fashion and did not remove any > accessability features. They do not prevent you from applying whatever > you like to the kernel, they just don't do it for you. See also item 6 > above. > 8. RedHat failing to accomodate one of their students is morally wrong. > In the U.S. it is also illegal. ADA and others are reactive not > proactive. If it bothers you that much, sue. It should be noted that I > went through the MCSE courses for NT 4 and M.S. provided accessable > training materials to the company providing the training. This may sway > RedHat in the future for their courses if someone else is headed down that > path. Cisco provides readers for their CCNA/CCNP/CCIE exams. RedHat may > prefer to lead rather than to follow. Additionally, if they intend to > sell to the U.S. Government they need to comply with section 508 in their > support, training and documentation. [Whitley GS11 Cecil H]
