This means that if you make a script that does something that only you personally will get anything out of, that's fine, make it as inaccessible as you like, only you will deal with any consequences that arise from that. But if you make something you're going to release to the public, and you don't know a thing about accessibility, don't you dare expect users to do to the work of learning your codebase, and making your thing accessible.
@devinprater This reminds me of a heated FSF thread. FSF says that FOSS need not be accessible at all, which is technically true, but then they also say that all copies of the source code must be distributed w/binaries if binaries are distributed. But then they relaxed that b/c ppl often just want the binaries. So FSF says it’s good enough to distribute a link to the source w/the binaries.
@devinprater And that’s where shit falls apart. The link to the source code may be in some walled garden. And to that FSF says distribution is not a FOSS requirement.
@devinprater So in the end we have accessible binaries floating around with inaccessible source code and inaccessible docs, yet that still gets the “free software” label.
Well, GPL is based on the fact that a user of some software can get the source code and modify it.
GPL does NOT require that one distribute the source code to anyone but the user.
GPL does NOT require that the software is free of charge for a user. I can make GPL code for a large enterprise to use it for their internal use, charge for it and not give it to the public.
Herein lies all the complications regarding accessibility, morally vs legally.
A home where one can be themselves.