Re: My problem with the Blindy handbook
@RWBeardJR: I don't think we need to direct people to Blind Mice since it's still a legal grayarea even though you have to sign up, since we don't know where they get their content and distribution right (why they're so opaque about that is beyond me). After all, I honestly wonder why Serotech is dealing with them and integrating them in a paid subscription service if their activity is in question, unless of course they know something we don't. As for ***.net not sure if you did that one on purpose or if the mods moved it themselves.
Re, the handbook: I think the discussion has moved onto the software offerings now, since a shiny installer package for all the essential software would be nice. You'd be surprised how many people don't even know NVDA even exists, much less all this other useful software, and when they do it's like a whole new world exposed to them.
Regarding creating a compilation package, does that count as ilicit redistribution even if we provide links to where to get the original package? I know some conventionally licensed software is pretty anal about redistribution even if the package is free. Admittedly, stipulating that software only be downloaded from a developer's site and nowhere else has its benefits as well, they can get metrics on how many users they have which could help in future developments, and it also is a safety net should those sleesy download.com sites get the bright idea to distribute adware laced versions of a developer's software offerings.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
