The discussion I remember had to do with how busy this list is and how far ranging the topics disucssed here. So, I'm just asking Matt whether he's decided to go along with the general list ethos and discuss both the technology and the license of Freedom Box, or whether he's being inconsistent with the views he prevously expressed when he said our discussions of the FB license where "inappropriate" and we should take up any further questions with him personally. I think this is a resonable question since he brought up the issue. I have no problem with Matt offering help on this list to people trying out Freedom Box, in fact I welcome it. But I do think it reasonable to ask people to be consistent in what they say and do. I'm also not trying to start a flame. I just want to understand what the conclusion is to the issue of what topics are appropriate for the Speakup list as Matt understands that. That's what I'm asking. Is this so unreasonable? Ron Marriage writes: > I think his comment wasn't that the Freedom Box was off topic, but that the discussion about the license was incorrect. > Had anyone read the press release from Freedom Box, or read the license info off the Mozilla site they wouldn't have made the mistakes that were being made. > Incorrect information shouldn't be allowed to spread, and that was what was happening. > > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Janina Sajka" <janina at rednote.net> > To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> > Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 10:01 AM > Subject: Re: FreedomBox ot? > > > > Not so fast, Matt. > > > > What are you doing? What's this about you posting helpful advice about a non Speakup related application on the Speakup list. I'm sorry, but I must call you to task. Have you changed your mind about your post the other day calling discussions of the Mozilla license and Freedom Box' obligations off topic? Are you now considering Freedom Box on topic for the Speakup list? Or do you just think the license discussion is off topic but technical, user support type discussion on topic. > > > > Which is it? > > > > I think we deserve to know since you're the one who raised the issue most recently. So, let's finish that conversation. Which is it, Matt? > > > > Matt Campbell writes: > > > Well, FreedomBox doesn't require ALSA. I've tested it with the emu10k1 > > > OSS driver that comes with kernel version 2.4.22; I haven't tried a 2.6 > > > kernel yet. And on my 266 MHz machine I used the cs4231 OSS driver that > > > comes with the kernel. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
