Live data from Hacker News

Audacity Aquired by Muse Group

scoringnotes.com

201–205 of 205 posts

Re: Audacity Aquired by Muse Group

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They likely now own the copyrights held by the primary developers and all the trademark rights to the Audacity name and logo.

How does trademark work when the license is essentially "do whatever you want to do"?

Trademarks are actually still useful for open-source software, since they ensure that a malicious or incompetent party can't ruin the name of your software by shipping a modification that does bad things.

Jason Rohrer ran into this very issue when other developers made their own client for his game, using a variation on the game's name. They didn't respond to him asking that they don't use the name, and eventually he was convinced that trademarking the name is the right tool to project it. The original game client is still open-source (and maybe the server too, dunno).

Re: Audacity Aquired by Muse Group

#203
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does trademark work when the license is essentially "do whatever you want to do"?

Trademarks are actually still useful for open-source software, since they ensure that a malicious or incompetent party can't ruin the name of your software by shipping a modification that does bad things. Jason Rohrer ran into this very issue when other developers made their own client for his game, using a variation on the game's name. They didn't respond to him asking that they don't use the name, and eventually he…

(Not to imply that copyright isn't useful: OSS licensing, and especially restrictive copyleft licenses, literally piggyback on copyright law.)

Re: Audacity Aquired by Muse Group

#204
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make my computing devices comfortable are hidden under "accessibility" menus in settings screens. That IS accessibility.

Accessibility is often understood to be for people with disabilities. For example, Wikipedia's first line on the topic[1] is: > Accessibility in the sense considered here refers to the design of products, devices, services, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities. And the W3C's intro to accessibility[2] says: > When websites and web tools are properly designed and coded, people with disabilitie…

I think you're trying to counter my off-the-cuff (re)-definition of accessibility. You're pushing it into the sphere of "it's just for disabled people".

I agree that's how the word is used most often. But using it that way others disabled people. Othering allows decision-makers to ignore the out-group because "it's not economically viable to support them" or because "it's too difficult" or "we'll have to learn & refactor, which takes time away from features"... or whatever.

I consciously put forward the suggestion, somewhat masked by my flippant tone, that developers (in the sense of anyone involved in "making": CEOs, management, designers, engineers) could do a small shift in their thinking that would open up the idea of access for all. This would push back the othering of disabled people, would include them. It would allow developers to work more creatively with the idea that their fellow humans interact with with products and services in myriad ways.

Even if you want to take the tighter definition of accessibility put forward on Wikipedia, the topic can still be opened up to new perspectives. Consider the differences between the medical and social models of disability. The medical model says that disabled people have deviations from mean physiology or psychology that must be addressed symptomatically, under "medical" supervision. The social model[0] pushes the disability out to our social systems. Sure, some people have "incapacities" - challenges with movement or sensory processing etc - but the dis-able-ing is enacted by the social systems (design patterns, funding, font-sizing, stairs vs ramps, stigma, othering) that ignores the needs of anyone off the mean.

I struggle to see clearly at distance. The fact I don't know which train to board is more because the station designers built the timetabling system with a typeface that can only be read comfortably by those with mean/median vision. If they printed it larger, I could stand in the crowd and read the sign like everyone else. If they'd installed a PA system and announcements, I could use my hearing instead. (fortunately, most stations do work this way now. Hopefully you can see the systems thinking in my example).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability

Re: Audacity Aquired by Muse Group

#205
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s odd that you singled out Gimp as they are the only free software project I’m aware of who engaged a professional UX consultant to redesign their UI, and that must be maybe 15 years ago

Gimp is great, but it’s also the UI that I think of when I think of OSS that lacks finish. Hiring a UX consultant one time, 15 years ago, isn’t how people realize a good user experience. That’s why companies employ UI / UX engineers full time…

He wasn’t hired, he was a part of the development team for a number of years. For all I know, he still is.

I still think you’ve chosen a bad example. Gimp’s UI is no worse than Photoshop’s, and that’s not open source.

Post reply on HN