RE: 2.4 Proposed Modules - 2 weeks left

> From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina rednote net] 
> i must confess I'm having a pretty hard time coming to terms 
> with being
> characterized as "just a marketing bullet point." Ouch.

That's not what anyone said.
> But, let me return to the central question: What are the criteria for
> inclusion?
> How about the license? Is a proprietary license acceptable? In other
> words, is open source also "just a marketing bullet point?"

No, but it's hard to fix the license later.


> If there are no consequences--doesn't matter that you haven't even
> considered how you get to accessible because something is better than
> nothing--then how can we trust, we for whom this is a basic issue
> determining whether or not we participate.

But we _have_ considered how to make epiphany accessible. I don't think any
new module will be added to GNOME if we think it will _never_ be accessible.

> Please recognize that in the particular application in question,
> Epiphany, there's a double insult. Indeed, it seems that 
> Epiphany needs
> to experience an epiphany. At the very least you should change that
> insulting name.

It's called epiphany. It's not called upyours.

We'd all really like it if epiphany was 100% accessible already. But it's
not. Luckily that will not impact anyone too badly, we think. Just use
Mozilla if accessibility is more important to you than full GNOME
integration. Disabled people already need to make choices about how they
will use the desktop so maybe this is just one more. Again, I wish
everything was perfect, but it's not, so let's make the best of it.

Far more importantly, doing nothing is not an option. We must move forward.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]