I think vinux would be a good addition to the NPII team of advisors and more. You should write to Gregg Vanderheiden (gv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) and tell him I sent you. cdh On Mar 28, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Bill Cox wrote: > Hi, Chris. The rest of the statement is excellent. While I tend to > agree with the FSF position on cloud computing, there is obviously > room for debate, which is not particularly related to accessibility. > Therefore, I also recommend removing that part. > > BTW, is there any reason for Vinux to work with NPII, or is NPII a > higher level effort? > > Bill > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Chris Hofstader <cdh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have spent most of the last nine months working on NPII. I think it is a >> very good idea and can be managed in a way that can preserve anonymity while >> having some of its services running on a server. All software written by >> RTF/NPII will have a free software license (I think it will be MIT) but >> third parties, including proprietary software vendors, can use our back end >> to augment their products. >> >> The one problem with NPII is that it is a really big project and raising >> money to move it out of the discussion phase is an arduous process to say >> the least. >> >> As I said earlier, I'm collecting criticism and ideas for the next version >> of the GNU Accessibility Statement and appreciate the feedback. >> >> So, I think we can say that this group would prefer the server based >> applications sentence be removed. Now, what do you guys think about >> everything else in the statement? >> >> cdh >> On Mar 27, 2010, at 4:05 PM, qubit wrote: >> >>> I didn't see much technical at that website -- just a general overview and >>> FAQ and white paper. But it is interesting. I personally wonder if it is >>> possible to do what they want -- I mean, leveling the playing field for >>> everyone with a broad range of disabilities and still allow normal >>> competition in the software market -- I say this because different persons >>> have different and sometimes conflicting needs, which would require >>> different support not just on the net infrastructure, but also in >>> applications. >>> But it remains to be seen how successful this strategy will be. >>> Are you a member? >>> --le >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jamal Mazrui" <empower@xxxxxxxxx> >>> To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: "Chris Hofstader" <cdh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:18 PM >>> Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online >>> >>> >>> I agree that there are legitimate privacy concerns that one should >>> address when using web-based applications. I also agree that, other >>> things being equal, it is better to get a computing job done locally, >>> without needing an Internet connection. >>> >>> I also think that cloud computing offers much potential for people with >>> disabilities if managed well. A coalition of individuals and >>> organizations in the accessibility field believes this to be the case, >>> and has proposed a "National Public Inclusive Infrastructure" described >>> at the web site >>> http://npii.org/ >>> >>> Jamal >>> >>> __________ >>> View the list's information and change your settings at >>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind >>> >>> __________ >>> View the list's information and change your settings at >>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind >>> >> >> __________ >> View the list's information and change your settings at >> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind >> >> > __________ > View the list's information and change your settings at > //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind > __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind