They'll have no trouble with it at all. I'm yet to encounter a screen reader that reads the name element of an input field. Perhaps it would if the field was otherwise devoid of any descriptive text, but you'd have to be a real jackass to provide an unlabeled input field and expect anybody to know what to do with it. :)

Im afraid you misunderstand me. Again, only the field name is affected, not the label for the field. I've used text-only browsers regularly since 1994 (Mosaic over a 14.4k modem, Lynx, and now Links), and I'm yet to encounter one that displays the name element of an input field to the user.

Third, do they fill out a hidden inputbox? This is sort of the reverse captcha.

This is really a very good test. As others have mentioned in this thread, it's the sort of thing that spammers will circumvent if it becomes widespread, but for now it's great.

There's something else I've found to be really quite effective: deliberately misnaming my form fields. For instance, give the input field that's labelled "First Name" an input name of "phone number." Humans don't use input names to determine what text to enter, but spambots do. Then check that inputâ"if the first name field contains a phone number, you know you've got yourself spammer.

I've used solely the combination of these two things to run one of my websites for two years now, and I get a vanishingly small amount of spam.

I didn't say that the GPL wouldn't be necessary, just that it wouldn't be possible.

But I'd argue that it would still be necessary. After all, anybody can release their software into the public domain. But we don'tâ"we give it away under a license, like the GPL. Why? I'd posit that it's because we like the restrictions that it places on those who use it, and it ensures the existence of a vibrant open source software bazaar. But, no matter the reason, the point is that we have the option to release our work without restrictions now, and yet vanishingly few people do so. I think that demonstrates the necessity of the GPL, even in a world without copyright for software.

You write that Apple "granted permission" to the maker of Franklin and then yanked it. That's simply not true. Not even close.

In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., the 3rd Circuit found that Franklin did so without any permission from Apple, but Franklin's logic was that you can't copyright something software isn't written down on paper. They copied ROMs that had no equivalent for sale on paper, ergo they didn't need to ask permission and Apple couldn't stop them. The circuit court ruled in favor of Franklin, because there was no legal precedent allowing software to be copyrighted, which is how it got bumped up to the circuit court, who ruled for Apple.

Obviously, Apple was right here. Without copyright for software, we'd have no GPL and the open source movement would still be stuck at the "freeware" stage.

Eponysterical!