Re: GNU GPL future
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MJ Ray wrote: > > Well, that's just great for the users who can see the UI without it > > spewing errors. Was there really no way to offer the same features to > > everyone in an easily-accessible way? > > I don't know; you'd have to ask the designers. I have, albeit in less colourful language. The reply was along the lines of it working for most people and being quicker to do like that, which didn't really answer it. > Although you are now > using the word "accessible" when I don't think you were before; is your > complaint that there are disabled users who can't access the interface? That's my main complaint. Compare the app against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and see how many it fails to follow. It's better than it was - at first, even colours were screwed - but still a long way short. I doubt the app designers even looked at them. What sort of consultation is this thing? A big black box to most of us. [...] > > There are free software browsers with which it doesn't work, even though > > they follow the usual web standards. > > Which ones? links is the one which produced the most bizarre errors, thanks to the javascript relying on Mozilla-centric features, as far as I can tell. (This answers the question about which non-standard features.) > > It's a big step backwards from any-browser > > (which was claimed on the gplv3 site at first, but later removed, rather > > than bringing the software into line). > > What does "any-browser" mean? Would you have them work on Netscape 4 > support? Or Netscape 3? Where does it end? NS4 with its buggy CSS off, sure. Any browser means anything which can speak a reasonably modern HTTP and display a reasonably modern xhtml. Extend it if needed, but there's no good reason to break it for earlier users. Let as many users as possible can take advantage of the information published and participate in the consultation. Conservative in what you generate... > Devil's advocate: Would you have objected if they had said "We can't do > this properly in a browser-based interface; please download our free > software dedicated client, with binaries available for Windows, Linux > and Mac OS X, and source in this tarball"? If there was an identifiable API used and the source followed the GNU Coding Standards and GNU Maintainer practices, then probably not. > If not, what's the difference if Firefox is the dedicated client? Firefox is a memory hog, doesn't fit into my desktop environment and my computer won't suspend if it's running. I also don't trust its Javascript and Cookie implementations. It's another big application which I found messy enough to compile, let alone start hacking an application built on top of it. The application API is a pain to unpack from HTTP and didn't seem to be documented anywhere apart from the spaghetti source, which is hard to test running, thanks to the lack of an INSTALL. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future
MJ Ray wrote: > Well, that's just great for the users who can see the UI without it > spewing errors. Was there really no way to offer the same features to > everyone in an easily-accessible way? I don't know; you'd have to ask the designers. Although you are now using the word "accessible" when I don't think you were before; is your complaint that there are disabled users who can't access the interface? Or just that it doesn't work in a particular graphical browser? I have far more sympathy with the former complaint than the latter. >> Given that free software browsers which work with it are available for >> almost every current OS under the sun, to reduce the function to further >> widen the browser choice would have been a bad tradeoff. > > There are free software browsers with which it doesn't work, even though > they follow the usual web standards. Which ones? > Should it be the place of FSF > consultations to discriminate between free software by using non-standard > features of some of them? Which non-standard features do you have in mind? Even bearing in mind that the line between standard and non-standard features has blurred somewhat with the emergence of the WhatWG, there is a distinction between "doesn't work because the browser hasn't implemented the standards yet" and "doesn't work because some non-standard feature has been used". > It's a big step backwards from any-browser > (which was claimed on the gplv3 site at first, but later removed, rather > than bringing the software into line). What does "any-browser" mean? Would you have them work on Netscape 4 support? Or Netscape 3? Where does it end? Devil's advocate: Would you have objected if they had said "We can't do this properly in a browser-based interface; please download our free software dedicated client, with binaries available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X, and source in this tarball"? If not, what's the difference if Firefox is the dedicated client? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MJ Ray wrote: > > It's the comment system which is incapable, not the people. > > IMO there was no good reason to design some people out of it. > > If it's possible to provide the same level of function with an interface > that works in more browsers, great - and I believe they did do that as > time went on, as it now works in Konqueror and IE. But the GPL v3 > commenting interface is, in my view, an exceptional piece of UI design > and the best way I have ever seen of managing that number of comments on > a document in a single interface. Well, that's just great for the users who can see the UI without it spewing errors. Was there really no way to offer the same features to everyone in an easily-accessible way? It's really hard to tell from the ball of spaghetti that was released, but it was based on RT somehow: so it started off accessible and then users were locked out. > Given that free software browsers which work with it are available for > almost every current OS under the sun, to reduce the function to further > widen the browser choice would have been a bad tradeoff. There are free software browsers with which it doesn't work, even though they follow the usual web standards. Should it be the place of FSF consultations to discriminate between free software by using non-standard features of some of them? It's a big step backwards from any-browser (which was claimed on the gplv3 site at first, but later removed, rather than bringing the software into line). -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future
MJ Ray wrote: > It's the comment system which is incapable, not the people. > IMO there was no good reason to design some people out of it. If it's possible to provide the same level of function with an interface that works in more browsers, great - and I believe they did do that as time went on, as it now works in Konqueror and IE. But the GPL v3 commenting interface is, in my view, an exceptional piece of UI design and the best way I have ever seen of managing that number of comments on a document in a single interface. Given that free software browsers which work with it are available for almost every current OS under the sun, to reduce the function to further widen the browser choice would have been a bad tradeoff. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You've mentioned this on multiple occasions; my offer to populate the > comment system with any comments that you are unable to make via it > still stands. Thank you. I don't recall that. I had hoped FSF would actually fix their bad processes to give equal opportunity in their consultation, but as time pushes on, I'll probably take up your offer. > [I extend this offer to anyone else who is incapable of > operating the comment system. [...] It's the comment system which is incapable, not the people. IMO there was no good reason to design some people out of it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, MJ Ray wrote: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has > > concerns to make them known now. [...] > > Unfortunately, to make them known, you have to jump through hoops of > being able to use their anybrowser-busting web system, persuade > their reject-all email robot or travel hundreds of miles at a few > days notice to public conferences. I'm pretty stubborn, but I've not > been able to overcome these problems. You've mentioned this on multiple occasions; my offer to populate the comment system with any comments that you are unable to make via it still stands. [I extend this offer to anyone else who is incapable of operating the comment system. I think your comments are important, and I'm willing to help you get them in.] Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has > concerns to make them known now. [...] Unfortunately, to make them known, you have to jump through hoops of being able to use their anybrowser-busting web system, persuade their reject-all email robot or travel hundreds of miles at a few days notice to public conferences. I'm pretty stubborn, but I've not been able to overcome these problems. How many hackers will have given up trying to talk to FSF about this? Commenting should have been made more easy. I guess it's good that at least some people can comment on this and be heard, which is a step forward from what appeared to happen over FDL. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GNU GPL future (was: Re: DFSG as Licence?)
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, > but I have complains against the new one. The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has concerns to make them known now. The draft you've read is *not* what the final GPL v3 will look like, and if you make your concerns known to the FSF now, they can take that into consideration for the final text of the license. http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/> It's not rational to say that you don't want to use "GPL v3" based on a draft; there's no "GPL v3" yet. The whole point of that draft is to solicit feedback on potential problems so they can be fixed *before* anyone uses GPL v3. -- \ "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we | `\ should be glad to serve others by any invention of ours." -- | _o__)Benjamin Franklin | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
