ideas for Mozilla integration

[Igor Gueths]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I do in fact have my facts straight. However, what enrages me the most 
is the fact that code that could be of great bennifit to the main 
Mozilla browser in terms of accessibility, is instead in the hands of a 
proprietary company. I am aware of the fact that he did not modify 
Mozilla itself, however I still believe their actions to be completely 
unethical. Consider this example. There is a hypothetical idea posted to 
one or more of the Mozilla project development lists proposing that a 
component be created that would provide software speech output for all 
browser output. If the Freedombox interface were released, all the 
developers would have to do is integrate that code into the existing 
API. However, they can't do that because this wonderful addition happens 
to be...proprietary. Not to mention the fact that Gnopernicus is far 
from ready. 
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 03:46:33PM -0400, Ann Parsons wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Igor, we've explained this.  Matt did not alter the Mozilla browser at
> all.  Therefore, he and Freedom Box can do whatever they like with the
> code.   Suggest you have all your facts before starting a big rumpus
> for no reason.
> 
> Ann P.
> 
> -- 
> 			Ann K. Parsons  
> email:  akp at eznet.net 			
> WEB SITE:  http://home.eznet.net/~akp
> "All that is gold does not glitter.  
> Not all those who wander are lost."  JRRT
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

- -- 
Failure is not an option, it comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAjBkeNohoaf1zXJMRAqE9AJ48bwzvhRxAMzJg1RAsymxEoaiBrgCgobnS
/wq2CHoSCaATuItKdHL1X0s=
=NaSs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----