Few questions about speakup

[Charles Crawford]

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.