W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: License conditions Re: aDesigner - was Re: Bobby - a bad tool

From: Jim Tobias <tobias@inclusive.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:54:46 -0400
Message-Id: <200410282054.i9SKsiwH039024@cedant4.abac.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Thanks, Phill.  I'm glad you clarified aDesigner's status, and I like all
your answers.
One question: I've looked at the alphaWorks forum for aDesigner, and the
volume is low.  Is IBM considering doing anything to pump this up, or
convene a user group, or anything else.  I have some suggestions, and I'm
sure others do too.  I really believe in the tool, and would like to see it

Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
732.441.0831 v/tty



From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Phill Jenkins
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:40 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: License conditions Re: aDesigner - was Re: Bobby - a bad tool

> Since I only intend to evaluate the thing, this seems fine. 
> But anyone who, for example, wanted their university web 
> designers to use it in order to produce more accessible 
> production content, would be in violation of the license, 
> and liable for damages (likely to be the cost of any
> commercial version or commercial license).
> Does this sound right, or did I miss something?
> Chaals 

Well, you described the limits of the license pretty well, but you're
missing the point of alphaWorks.   

Let me educate everyone about alphaWorks. It's typically alpha code, not so
much from a "quality of the code" view, because most of the technologies
(notice I didn't say products) on alphaWorks are mostly bug free, but more
from the business point of view that IBM hasn't decided if or when or how to
release this to the market.  In other words, we are looking for your
feedback on how you would want to buy it, or rent it, or have it bundled
with XYZ, etc.  We want your feedback on what IBM should or shouldn't
develop before we make it available.  The license is there to protect our
intellectual property rights and at the same time to allow all of us to
begin business discussions and technical feedback without requiring all of
you to sign a confidential disclosure agreements (CDA) and/or even buy it.
I don't think you want IBM to hide technologies like aDesigner from you
while we try to decide with you how to release it.   

The university is not in violation just for "wanting" to use it, they just
need to ask IBM for that purpose.  If you or anyone else wants to get 100
copies of aDesigner to use in your university, just send me an e-mail asking
that.  The alphaWorks license doesn't prevent you from asking - in fact this
license discussion will be healthy if we all come away with a better
understanding of the process.  Just ask and we'll see what IBM can do.     

Some of you may be asking: "Why doesn't IBM just make it easy for me to buy
a copy NOW and allow me to use it NOW to make site's accessible?"  Well,
obviously that is our hope, or we wouldn't have made it available on
alphaWorks to get feedback.  But this is our process for involving you into
the process.  "Feedback" and "alpha" are the two key words here.   

Bob said: 
> ... software that will only run on expensive
> proprietary software and equipment,
> gotta use ONLY windoze 2000 or XP and IE 6 

Not exactly true.  Yes, at the moment  the alphaWorks version is configured
to use Windows and IE, but it is also explained that aDesigner is built on
open source http://www.eclipse.org which was written to be able to be
delivered on multiple platforms such as Linux, Windows, and Mac.   

Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 20:54:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:23 UTC