[Accessibility] link to UI Automation Community Promise

Michael Meeks michael.meeks at novell.com
Mon Mar 10 07:31:02 PDT 2008


Hi Olaf,

On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:29 +0100, Olaf Schmidt wrote:
> Thanks for the reply and for your evaluation of the promise text.

	No problem.

> I assure you that I am not interesting in any marketing slogans - from
> neither side. My aim is only to make absolutely sure that there are no
> patent issues that lock GPL-licensed software away from users with
> disabilities.

	Sure.

> Am I right in assuming that you base your reply on information from
> Novell's legal department?

	No, you assume wrong; this is my personal opinion as a lay-person.

> Would it be possible to make the evaluation of these lawyers public?

	No; sorry. From my passing experience with lawyers, this sort of thing
just doesn't fly, for a vast number of contorted legal reasons I don't
understand: probably involving liability, attorney client privilege,
insurance, the price of fish etc. and either way trying to get an
"absolute" opinion in any direction is somewhat like nailing jelly to a
wall ;-)

> BTW, both SUN and IBM have contributed to OpenOffice and to AT-SPI
> under the LGPL

	As has Novell; though as an academic exercise: can you point to any IBM
code contributed to OO.o that they have distributed under the LGPL ? ;->

>  so they are bound by the license independent of any pledges or 
> promises. This means that there is no danger from their side of
> excluding GPL-licensed software from accessibility standards.

	As far as I can ascertain both from the CP, and from Microsoft - this
is neither their intention nor what the CP says. Any chance of a link to
the latest FSF opinion on it for another quick review, Google is not
helping me for some reason.

	HTH,

		Michael.

-- 
 michael.meeks at novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot




More information about the Accessibility mailing list