Thank you for this interesting case. In Norway it is an issue that people with impairments of different types struggle to get a job. I would think it is an issue in Denmark as well. It is a lot of effort to become fluent in tools, and having to learn two with identical purpose makes no sense. I would have though that helping people with tools that makes it easier to participate in both work and social life is a wanted thing. A free licence would have given the tool a chance to be used in a much wider sense, and given the tool a chance to be further developed by contributors so that it could be even more suited for different lifes.
I work as a tester here in Norway, to me it is difficult to get a hold of tools that are relevant for impaired users. So we make due with what we have (differs in every project). Unless impaired is a specific target group the extra effort for testing for different solutions is hard to justify, so it becomes a question of minimal effort/ compliant of laws. Making development of good solutions for impaired so much slower that it could have been. I am curious to why the Agency of digitization thinks this is the most viable model for their product. On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 9:26 AM Carsten Agger <[email protected]> wrote: > Digitaliseringsstyrelsen (Agency for Digitisation) in Denmark have > created an accessibility product called "acces for all" og "adgang for > alle", which is basically a screen reader. It's available for Windows > and MacOS, and for GNU/Linux-based operating systems it will work with > an extension for Chrome or Chromium: > > https://adgangforalle.dk/ > > Basically, it's a Danish screen reader for people who are visually > impaired, including the blind. > > It's available for download and anyone is free to use it, however it is > published under a very restrictive proprietary license. > > Among the conditions in the license are > > * Non-commercial use > > * No copying or distribution of any kind, under threat of "serious civil > and penal legal consequences". > > * No distribution within an organisation - an organisation such as e.g. > a library may *not* have the program on its servers in order to install > it on public-facing clients. > > There's one very curious thing about this product: Often, organizations > have software made by private vendors, and the private vendors will > retain their copyright and their right to keep it proprietary. In this > case, it's the Agency for Digitisation *itself* that claims the > copyright and threatens with draconian consequences to anyone who dares > use their product e.g. on the job and not just in their spare time. > > So it's Danish people's tax money preventing Danish people from using, > let alone sharing, studying and improving this software - created by > Danish tax money - and once again, it's us as taxpayers who are > financing the very agency that's withholding this software from the public. > > I find it surreal and close to a textbook example of how *not* to do > things. > > > Best regards, > > Carsten > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct -- Cecilie Wian "A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."*- Grace Hopper / William G.T. Shedd*
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
