Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx: Summary (Repost with a few typos corrected)

[Gene Collins]

Oops!  I said cursive and ment to say curses.
>Your answer to this question precisely demonstrates why ou need to do
>
>more research.  Many blind users are successfully using pine from shell
>accounts, and lately with the appearence of the speakup package,
>directly from the system console.  Since the kernel sends all text that
>is written to the console to the synthesizer when using the speakup
>package, there is no text based or cursive based application under linux
>that won't talk.
>
>You are correct in one regard though.  In order for a blind user to use
>newsgroups, email or the web to get help, one must have a working
>internet connection, which is true for everyone, not just blind people.
>
>Gene Collins
>
>
>
>>At 06:52 PM 10/6/99 +0100, RobertM wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sorry to rake over old coals, but this has been REALLY bugging me.
>>>Why can't a blind user, or anyone for that matter turn to the
>>>internet for help, if thier web browser isn't working?
>>
>>Right now, alas, there are many environments (especially UNIX ones)
>>where you can't easily do text-to-speech on an arbitrary program.
>>For example, there's no good way that I'm aware of to get PINE to
>>speak!
>>
>>>I would assume they'd still be able to send e-mail ro read news, 
>>
>>I wish we could assume that, but we can't. However, with the Web
>>browser, it's possible to read news, do e-mail, and more. Getting
>>the Web browser working solves a LOT of other problems.
>>
>>>which
>>>tend to be far more helpful than the web, which is all they could use
>>>lynx for, and if they couldn't do any of these things
>>>surely they'd be better off talking to thier ISP? 
>>
>>Depends upon what the problem is, and if the ISP understands (for
>>example) how to fix a DecTalk. Most do not.
>>
>>>What you seem to be selling is support, 
>>
>>No -- that's only one of the things we want to offer. We also want
>>to license and reuse the code for many applications. Putting your
>>work under the GPL means that you are effectively foregoing ANY
>>income from it and giving up all control of its evolution -- for
>>good. Maybe you could get a little money printing books, pressing 
>>CDs, or doing one-off consulting work, but the investment you'd 
>>made in the work itself is gone forever.
>>
>>Also, a "selling support" model has another severe problem: the 
>>better your work is, the more income you lose because people do 
>>not need much support! We want to be rewarded if our code is good, 
>>not because it is bad.
>>
>>We also don't want to "nickel-and-dime" users to death. A 900
>>support line (besides giving most of the revenues to the telephone
>>company) would be too expensive for many of our users, especially 
>>those who were unemployed, underemployed, or elderly. And asking 
>>for a credit card is equally awkward and inefficient. Better to 
>>finance support from the sale price of the product.
>>
>>Finally, events in this forum have shown us that the GPL is a tool
>>of spite and malice. It embodies the ill will of an embittered
>>academic who resented the fact that his research was used in
>>the real world -- by those who paid for it! 
>>
>>We want to do good for people; we certainly would not want to 
>>subscribe to an agenda that incorporates such childish
>>and destructive motives. So the GPL is absolutely out.
>>
>>--Brett Glass
>>
>>
>