subject:"window\-eyes open source\?"


NVDA probably has to be scripted for that program then.



On 9/11/2017 9:35 AM, Russ Kiehne wrote:
Here's some thing I noticed about NVDA.  When arrowing up and down the 
message list in windows live mail 2012, NVDA doesn't say things like 
replied to, forwarded, attachment like window eyes.


-Original Message- From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 5:05 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

yes, and as far as donating I would rather donate my money to the NVDA
project rather than giving it to VFO and spend money on tons of jaws
bells and whistles I'll mostly never use.



On 9/10/2017 6:54 PM, Loy via Talk wrote:
NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it 
happening that people will download the free program instead of 
paying hundreds of dollars for a very similar program.

   - Original Message -
   From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
   To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
   Cc: Josh Kennedy
   Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
   Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


   Why couldn't it happen?



   On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
   > I don't see that happening.
   >
   > -Original Message-
   > From: Talk 
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk

   > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
   > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
   > Cc: Josh Kennedy
   > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
   >
   > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their 
business profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more 
popular than jaws and would still be open source?

   >
   >
   >
   >
   > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
   >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after 
the

   >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
   >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a 
quick look at facts.

   >>
   >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone 
software,
   >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been 
pretty easy.
   >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to 
develop

   >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
   >>
   >> Things are not that easy!
   >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
   >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements 
with -
   >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, 
kind of
   >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these 
techniques

   >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
   >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
   >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold 
of the
   >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for 
unwanted

   >> activity, or even malware development.
   >>
   >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. 
Many of

   >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
   >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. 
This
   >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a 
server, and

   >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
   >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
   >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather 
details, and process them for you.

   >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
   >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, 
under the
   >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in 
trouble

   >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
   >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized 
code of

   >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
   >>
   >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by 
providing
   >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed 
program.
   >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the 
cryptizer,
   >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in 
turn might

   >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
   >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed 
they had

   >> broken the cryptizer.
   >>
   >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the 
apps
   >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for 
accessing the
   >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that the

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread Olusegun -- Victory Associates LTD, Inc. via Talk

let me correct myself here. the j-say product costs around $400 or $300. 
that is for jaws. dictation bridge for all screen readers costs, and 
will cost, $0.




On 9/11/2017 8:27 AM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:

No you don't dictation bridge is being developed for jaws it won't cost
$400.

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:42 AM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA works with dragon naturally speaking, and windows speech recognition,
and it does it for free, with an addon called dictation bridge. with jaws
you have to pay an extra $400 or so for that functionality.



On 9/10/2017 11:51 PM, Sky Mundell via Talk wrote:

The problem is that FS has too much of a monopoly in the paid market.
Monopolies are illegal.
-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Long via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:51 PM
To: 'Window-Eyes Discussion List'
Cc: Dennis Long
Subject: RE: window-eyes open source?

It is far from being as good as jaws!

-Original Message-
From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Loy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening
that people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds
of dollars for a very similar program.
- Original Message -
From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


Why couldn't it happen?



On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
> I don't see that happening.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Cc: Josh Kennedy
> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their
business profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more
popular than jaws and would still be open source?
>
>
>
>
> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a
quick look at facts.
>>
>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone

software,

>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been
pretty easy.
>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>
>> Things are not that easy!
>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with

-

>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these

techniques

>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of

the

>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for

unwanted

>> activity, or even malware development.
>>
>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many

of

>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather
details, and process them for you.
>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under

the

>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
>> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
>> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code

of

>> the app, get to the credencials, and

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread Russ Kiehne via Talk

Here's some thing I noticed about NVDA.  When arrowing up and down the 
message list in windows live mail 2012, NVDA doesn't say things like replied 
to, forwarded, attachment like window eyes.


-Original Message- 
From: Josh Kennedy via Talk

Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 5:05 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

yes, and as far as donating I would rather donate my money to the NVDA
project rather than giving it to VFO and spend money on tons of jaws
bells and whistles I'll mostly never use.



On 9/10/2017 6:54 PM, Loy via Talk wrote:
NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening 
that people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of 
dollars for a very similar program.

   - Original Message -
   From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
   To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
   Cc: Josh Kennedy
   Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
   Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


   Why couldn't it happen?



   On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
   > I don't see that happening.
   >
   > -Original Message-
   > From: Talk 
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk

   > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
   > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
   > Cc: Josh Kennedy
   > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
   >
   > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their 
business profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular 
than jaws and would still be open source?

   >
   >
   >
   >
   > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
   >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
   >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
   >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick 
look at facts.

   >>
   >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone 
software,
   >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty 
easy.

   >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
   >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
   >>
   >> Things are not that easy!
   >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
   >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements 
with -

   >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
   >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these 
techniques

   >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
   >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
   >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of 
the
   >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for 
unwanted

   >> activity, or even malware development.
   >>
   >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many 
of

   >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
   >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
   >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
   >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
   >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
   >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather 
details, and process them for you.

   >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
   >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under 
the

   >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
   >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
   >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code 
of

   >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
   >>
   >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by 
providing
   >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed 
program.
   >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the 
cryptizer,
   >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn 
might

   >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
   >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they 
had

   >> broken the cryptizer.
   >>
   >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
   >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
   >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these 
credencials

   >> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack so

RE: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread Dennis Long via Talk

Agree with you!

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Marvin Commerford via Talk
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 8:59 AM
To: Josh Kennedy via Talk
Cc: Marvin Commerford
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

Big surprise!  You've clearly demonstrated over time that you want something
for nothing.  Harping on WE becoming open source has as much chance of being
successful as all of us getting sight.  This nagging behavior sometimes
works for children with exhausted parents but this case is much larger than
that.  Demonstrate support for the open source concept by supporting
projects that use that model.  I'm also not happy about what has happened to
WE but the sun still comes up every day.  I didn't get my way with this
situation so it's time to move on.

On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
> NVDA is fine to use. I like its business model better than VFO's 
> business model.
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/9/2017 10:14 PM, mr. Chikodinaka Nickarandidum Oguledo via Talk
wrote:
>> your brakeing the law! you court room jude judy or juje patricia 
>> dimigao in the court room
>>
>> On 9/9/17, Tom Kingston via Talk <talk@lists.window-eyes.com> wrote:
>>> Your question makes absolutely no sense in the context of this 
>>> discussion. NVDA's business model has no correlation to VFO's 
>>> ownership of Window-Eyes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/9/2017 9:40 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
>>>> then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
>>>>> Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of 
>>>>> money to purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that 
>>>>> competitor right back in business against you. And no business 
>>>>> owner with a drop of sense would want to do it anyway. Businesses 
>>>>> like Apple, google, and Microsoft buy a heap of smaller businesses 
>>>>> every year. They don't do so to turn around and give them away. FS 
>>>>> is no doubt picking through the Window-Eyes code looking for ways 
>>>>> to improve JAWS or features to add.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
>>>>>> if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would 
>>>>>> turn around and just open source it. if the product was no longer 
>>>>>> supported by my business I'd just tell people do what you want 
>>>>>> with it, we moved on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we 
>>>>>> do not care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
>>>>>>> No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your 
>>>>>>> number one competitor would you turn around and give it away for 
>>>>>>> someone else to continue its development?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
>>>>>>>> hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer 
>>>>>>>> supported to get the window-eyes source code make it open 
>>>>>>>> source and put it up on the github website? then other 
>>>>>>>> developers could keep developing window eyes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those 
>>>>>>> of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For membership options, visit
>>>>>>>
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy2
01%40comcast.net. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For subscription options, visit
>>>>>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>>>>>> List archives can be found at
>>>>>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> sent with mozilla thunderbird
>>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Any views or opinions presented in thi

RE: window-eyes open source?

David, right on the money if I dare say so!  How I wish NVDA would PUSH
something to Android!  It would certainly give Voice Views, Voice Assistant,
ShinePlus and Talkback an interesting challenge and may be help those who
already use it bring their own screen reader of choice to Android land!  

As for the $1,200 on coffee, yeah, brother, bring some of those over to my
new venture, Savanna Coffee, I have an espresso cup waiting for you!

Sincerely,
Olusegun
Denver, Colorado


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread Marvin Commerford via Talk

Big surprise! You've clearly demonstrated over time that you want
something for nothing. Harping on WE becoming open source has as much
chance of being successful as all of us getting sight. This nagging
behavior sometimes works for children with exhausted parents but this
case is much larger than that. Demonstrate support for the open source
concept by supporting projects that use that model. I'm also not happy
about what has happened to WE but the sun still comes up every day. I
didn't get my way with this situation so it's time to move on.

On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
NVDA is fine to use. I like its business model better than VFO's
business model.

On 9/9/2017 10:14 PM, mr. Chikodinaka Nickarandidum Oguledo via Talk wrote:

your brakeing the law! you court room jude judy or juje patricia
dimigao in the court room

On 9/9/17, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

Your question makes absolutely no sense in the context of this
discussion. NVDA's business model has no correlation to VFO's ownership
of Window-Eyes.

On 9/9/2017 9:40 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:

then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?

On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of money
to purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that competitor
right back in business against you. And no business owner with a drop
of sense would want to do it anyway. Businesses like Apple, google,
and Microsoft buy a heap of smaller businesses every year. They don't
do so to turn around and give them away. FS is no doubt picking
through the Window-Eyes code looking for ways to improve JAWS or
features to add.

On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:

if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn
around and just open source it. if the product was no longer
supported by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with
it, we moved on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not
care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number
one competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone
else to continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported
to get the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it
up on the github website? then other developers could keep
developing window eyes.

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.

For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.

For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author

and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/ochikodinaka%40gmail.com.

For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

RE: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread Dennis Long via Talk

No you don't dictation bridge is being developed for jaws it won't cost
$400.

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:42 AM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA works with dragon naturally speaking, and windows speech recognition,
and it does it for free, with an addon called dictation bridge. with jaws
you have to pay an extra $400 or so for that functionality.



On 9/10/2017 11:51 PM, Sky Mundell via Talk wrote:
> The problem is that FS has too much of a monopoly in the paid market.
> Monopolies are illegal.
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
> Behalf Of Dennis Long via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:51 PM
> To: 'Window-Eyes Discussion List'
> Cc: Dennis Long
> Subject: RE: window-eyes open source?
>
> It is far from being as good as jaws!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk 
> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
> On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Cc: Loy
> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
> NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening 
> that people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds 
> of dollars for a very similar program.
>- Original Message -
>From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
>To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
>    Cc: Josh Kennedy
>Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
>Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
>
>Why couldn't it happen?
>
>
>
>On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
>> I don't see that happening.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Talk
> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
> Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
>> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Cc: Josh Kennedy
>> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>>
>> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their 
> business profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more 
> popular than jaws and would still be open source?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a 
> quick look at facts.
>>>
>>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone
software,
>>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been 
> pretty easy.
>>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>>
>>> Things are not that easy!
>>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with
-
>>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these
techniques
>>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of
the
>>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for
unwanted
>>> activity, or even malware development.
>>>
>>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many
of
>>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>>> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather 
> details, and process them for you.
>>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under
the
>>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
>>> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By do

RE: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread Adaptive Information Systems Inc. via Talk

tional screen reader!



  Regards,



  Roger A. Behm, President





  Adaptive Information Systems Inc. 
  We Make Technology Accessible to the vision Impaired and Reading Disabled 

  Roger A. Behm, President 
  1611 Clover Lane 
  Janesville WI 53545-1388 
  Fax: 608-758-7898 
  Voice: 608-758-0933 
  Email: aist...@ameritech.net 
  Web Page: www.adaptiveinformation.org 








-- 

Quentin Christensen
Training and Support Manager


Basic Training for NVDA & Microsoft Word with NVDA E-Books now available:
http://www.nvaccess.org/shop/


Ph +61 7 3149 3306 
www.nvaccess.org 
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess 
Twitter: @NVAccess

\

Adaptive Information Systems Inc. 
We Make Technology Accessible to the vision Impaired and Reading Disabled 

Roger A. Behm, President 
1611 Clover Lane 
Janesville WI 53545-1388 
Fax: 608-758-7898 
Voice: 608-758-0933 
Email: aist...@ameritech.net 
Web Page: www.adaptiveinformation.org 

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+aistech=ameritech@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Singing Sparrow via Talk
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:05 AM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Singing Sparrow
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

To Be honest with you nvda has a place for people wherejaws will not be 
able to fill. NVDA does things better thenJaws will ever do.


On 9/10/2017 10:50 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
> It is far from being as good as jaws!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
> On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Cc: Loy
> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
> NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening
that
> people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of
dollars
> for a very similar program.
>- Original Message -
>From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
>To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
>Cc: Josh Kennedy
>Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
>Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
>
>Why couldn't it happen?
>
>
>
>On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
>> I don't see that happening.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Talk
> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf
> Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
>> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Cc: Josh Kennedy
>> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>>
>> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their
business
> profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws
> and would still be open source?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick
look
> at facts.
>>>
>>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone
software,
>>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty
> easy.
>>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>>
>>> Things are not that easy!
>>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with
-
>>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these
techniques
>>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of
the
>>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for
unwanted
>>> activity, or even malware development.
>>>
>>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many
of
>>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>>> WeatherOrNot, which h

Re: window-eyes open source?

ser, likely won't need Jaws, and
can enjoy a heavy good load of donuts and coffee, for the 1200 saved. :)


David

On 9/11/2017 12:54 AM, Loy via Talk wrote:

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that 
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars for 
a very similar program.
- Original Message -
From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


Why couldn't it happen?



On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
> I don't see that happening.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk 
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of 
Josh Kennedy via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Cc: Josh Kennedy
    > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business 
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws and 
would still be open source?
>
>
>
>
> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look 
at facts.
>>
>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>
>> Things are not that easy!
>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
>> activity, or even malware development.
>>
>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details, 
and process them for you.
>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
>> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
>> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
>> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
>>
>> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
>> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
>> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
>> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
>> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
>> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
>> broken the cryptizer.
>>
>> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
>> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
>> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
>> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
>> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
>> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
>> their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.
>>
>> Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
>> introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this

Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA works with dragon naturally speaking, and windows speech 
recognition, and it does it for free, with an addon called dictation 
bridge. with jaws you have to pay an extra $400 or so for that 
functionality.




On 9/10/2017 11:51 PM, Sky Mundell via Talk wrote:

The problem is that FS has too much of a monopoly in the paid market.
Monopolies are illegal.
-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Long via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:51 PM
To: 'Window-Eyes Discussion List'
Cc: Dennis Long
Subject: RE: window-eyes open source?

It is far from being as good as jaws!

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Loy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars
for a very similar program.
   - Original Message -
   From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
   To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
   Cc: Josh Kennedy
   Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
   Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


   Why couldn't it happen?



   On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
   > I don't see that happening.
   >
   > -Original Message-
   > From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf
Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
   > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
   > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
   > Cc: Josh Kennedy
   > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
   >
   > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws
and would still be open source?
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
   >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
   >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
   >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look
at facts.
   >>
   >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
   >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty
easy.
   >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
   >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
   >>
   >> Things are not that easy!
   >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
   >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
   >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
   >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
   >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
   >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
   >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
   >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
   >> activity, or even malware development.
   >>
   >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
   >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
   >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
   >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
   >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
   >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
   >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
and process them for you.
   >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
   >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
   >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
   >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
   >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
   >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
   >>
   >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
   >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
   >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
   >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
   >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
   >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
   >> broken the cryptizer.
   >>
   >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that som

Re: window-eyes open source?

if you install NVDA addons and voices then, NVDA, becomes almost as good 
as jaws.




On 9/10/2017 11:50 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:

It is far from being as good as jaws!

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Loy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars
for a very similar program.
   - Original Message -
   From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
   To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
   Cc: Josh Kennedy
   Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
   Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


   Why couldn't it happen?



   On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
   > I don't see that happening.
   >
   > -Original Message-
   > From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf
Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
   > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
   > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
   > Cc: Josh Kennedy
   > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
   >
   > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws
and would still be open source?
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
   >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
   >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
   >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look
at facts.
   >>
   >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
   >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty
easy.
   >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
   >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
   >>
   >> Things are not that easy!
   >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
   >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
   >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
   >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
   >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
   >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
   >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
   >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
   >> activity, or even malware development.
   >>
   >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
   >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
   >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
   >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
   >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
   >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
   >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
and process them for you.
   >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
   >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
   >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
   >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
   >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
   >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
   >>
   >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
   >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
   >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
   >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
   >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
   >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
   >> broken the cryptizer.
   >>
   >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
   >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
   >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
   >> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
   >> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
   >> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
   >> their computer, and got a threatening messa

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread Singing Sparrow via Talk

To Be honest with you nvda has a place for people wherejaws will not be 
able to fill. NVDA does things better thenJaws will ever do.



On 9/10/2017 10:50 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:

It is far from being as good as jaws!

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Loy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars
for a very similar program.
   - Original Message -
   From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
   To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
   Cc: Josh Kennedy
   Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
   Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


   Why couldn't it happen?



   On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
   > I don't see that happening.
   >
   > -Original Message-
   > From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf
Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
   > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
   > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
   > Cc: Josh Kennedy
   > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
   >
   > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws
and would still be open source?
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
   >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
   >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
   >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look
at facts.
   >>
   >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
   >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty
easy.
   >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
   >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
   >>
   >> Things are not that easy!
   >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
   >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
   >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
   >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
   >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
   >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
   >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
   >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
   >> activity, or even malware development.
   >>
   >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
   >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
   >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
   >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
   >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
   >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
   >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
and process them for you.
   >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
   >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
   >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
   >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
   >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
   >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
   >>
   >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
   >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
   >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
   >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
   >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
   >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
   >> broken the cryptizer.
   >>
   >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
   >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
   >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
   >> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
   >> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
   >> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
   >&

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-11 Thread David via Talk

ote:
> NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that 
> people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars 
> for a very similar program.
>- Original Message -
>From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
>To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
>Cc: Josh Kennedy
>Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
>    Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
>
>Why couldn't it happen?
>
>
>
>On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
>> I don't see that happening.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Talk 
> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf 
> Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
>> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Cc: Josh Kennedy
>> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>>
>> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business 
> profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws and 
> would still be open source?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look 
> at facts.
>>>
>>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
>>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
>>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>>
>>> Things are not that easy!
>>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
>>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
>>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
>>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
>>> activity, or even malware development.
>>>
>>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
>>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>>> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details, 
> and process them for you.
>>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
>>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
>>> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
>>> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
>>> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
>>>
>>> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
>>> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
>>> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
>>> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
>>> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
>>> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
>>> broken the cryptizer.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
>>> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
>>> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
>>> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
>>> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
>>> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
>>> their computer, and got a threatening messag

RE: window-eyes open source?

Iagree.

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Nick Sarames via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 11:54 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Nick Sarames
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

Just because something dominates a market, doesn't mean it is a monopoly.

On 9/10/2017 11:51 PM, Sky Mundell via Talk wrote:
> The problem is that FS has too much of a monopoly in the paid market.
> Monopolies are illegal.
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
> Behalf Of Dennis Long via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:51 PM
> To: 'Window-Eyes Discussion List'
> Cc: Dennis Long
> Subject: RE: window-eyes open source?
> 
> It is far from being as good as jaws!
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk 
> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
> On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Cc: Loy
> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
> 
> NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening 
> that people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds 
> of dollars for a very similar program.
>- Original Message -
>From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
>To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
>    Cc: Josh Kennedy
>Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
>Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
> 
> 
>Why couldn't it happen?
> 
> 
> 
>On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
>> I don't see that happening.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Talk
> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
> Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
>> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Cc: Josh Kennedy
>> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>>
>> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their 
> business profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more 
> popular than jaws and would still be open source?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a 
> quick look at facts.
>>>
>>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone
software,
>>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been 
> pretty easy.
>>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>>
>>> Things are not that easy!
>>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with
-
>>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these
techniques
>>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of
the
>>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for
unwanted
>>> activity, or even malware development.
>>>
>>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many
of
>>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>>> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather 
> details, and process them for you.
>>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under
the
>>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
>>> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
>>> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code
of
>>> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
>>

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread Nick Sarames via Talk

Just because something dominates a market, doesn't mean it is a monopoly.

On 9/10/2017 11:51 PM, Sky Mundell via Talk wrote:
> The problem is that FS has too much of a monopoly in the paid market.
> Monopolies are illegal.
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Long via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:51 PM
> To: 'Window-Eyes Discussion List'
> Cc: Dennis Long
> Subject: RE: window-eyes open source?
> 
> It is far from being as good as jaws!
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
> On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Cc: Loy
> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
> 
> NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that
> people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars
> for a very similar program.
>- Original Message -
>From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
>To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
>Cc: Josh Kennedy
>    Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
>Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
> 
> 
>Why couldn't it happen?
> 
> 
> 
>On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
>> I don't see that happening.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Talk
> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf
> Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
>    > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
>> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Cc: Josh Kennedy
>> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>>
>> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
> profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws
> and would still be open source?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look
> at facts.
>>>
>>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
>>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty
> easy.
>>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>>
>>> Things are not that easy!
>>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
>>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
>>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
>>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
>>> activity, or even malware development.
>>>
>>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
>>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>>> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
> and process them for you.
>>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
>>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
>>> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
>>> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
>>> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
>>>
>>> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
>>> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
>>> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
>>> thereby

RE: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread Sky Mundell via Talk

The problem is that FS has too much of a monopoly in the paid market.
Monopolies are illegal.
-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf Of Dennis Long via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:51 PM
To: 'Window-Eyes Discussion List'
Cc: Dennis Long
Subject: RE: window-eyes open source?

It is far from being as good as jaws!

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Loy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars
for a very similar program.
  - Original Message -
  From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
  To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
  Cc: Josh Kennedy
  Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
  Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


  Why couldn't it happen?



  On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
  > I don't see that happening.
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf
Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
  > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
  > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
  > Cc: Josh Kennedy
  > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
  >
  > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws
and would still be open source?
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
  >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
  >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
  >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look
at facts.
  >>
  >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
  >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty
easy.
  >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
  >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
  >>
  >> Things are not that easy!
  >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
  >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
  >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
  >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
  >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
  >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
  >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
  >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
  >> activity, or even malware development.
  >>
  >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
  >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
  >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
  >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
  >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
  >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
  >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
and process them for you.
  >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
  >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
  >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
  >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
  >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
  >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
  >>
  >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
  >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
  >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
  >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
  >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
  >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
  >> broken the cryptizer.
  >>
  >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
  >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
  >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
  >> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
  >> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit w

RE: window-eyes open source?

It is far from being as good as jaws!

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Loy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:55 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Loy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars
for a very similar program.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Kennedy via Talk 
  To: Window-Eyes Discussion List 
  Cc: Josh Kennedy 
  Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
  Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


  Why couldn't it happen?



  On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
  > I don't see that happening.
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf
Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
  > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
  > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
  > Cc: Josh Kennedy
  > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
  >
  > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws
and would still be open source?
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
  >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
  >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
  >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look
at facts.
  >>
  >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
  >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty
easy.
  >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
  >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
  >>
  >> Things are not that easy!
  >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
  >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
  >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
  >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
  >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
  >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
  >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
  >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
  >> activity, or even malware development.
  >>
  >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
  >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
  >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
  >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
  >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
  >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
  >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
and process them for you.
  >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
  >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
  >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
  >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
  >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
  >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
  >>
  >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
  >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
  >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
  >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
  >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
  >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
  >> broken the cryptizer.
  >>
  >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
  >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
  >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
  >> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
  >> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
  >> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
  >> their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.
  >>
  >> Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
  >> introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this
  >> agreement

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread Singing Sparrow via Talk


When did you hear this and where is the proof that VFO wants to buy NVDA?


On 9/10/2017 7:06 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
where did you hear that from? and how can they purchase an open source 
product under the gpl?




On 9/10/2017 7:15 PM, ratshtron via Talk wrote:
don't push it! i have heard that they are wanting to purchase nvda 
and thus killing it as well.



Legend has it that on Sunday 9/10/2017 12:07 PM, Josh Kennedy via 
Talk said:


I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their 
business profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more 
popular than jaws and would still be open source? On 9/10/2017 2:54 
AM, David wrote: > Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple 
of days after the > anouncement of the discontinued development of 
WinEyes. I will get back > to what Doug said back then. First of 
all, let's take a quick look at facts. > > Had it been as easy as 
WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software, > with all its 
coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy. > And 
had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop the 
> software, they could have decided whatever they wanted. > > Things 
are not that easy! > First of all, what doug pointed out, was that 
to get the better > functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach 
certain agreements with - > for instance Adobe - to get access to 
third-party software, kind of > behind the scene. If they 
open-sourced the code, now these techniques > might be disclosed to 
the public, threatening the products of the > third-party 
manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to people, > not 
working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the key for > 
the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted 
activity, > or even malware development. > > Secondly, WinEyes had a 
feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of > them are 
open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app developer > to 
cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This was a > 
benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and maybe 
> even use some login credencials, to perform the activity. Without 
me > knowing for sure, we could think of an app like WeatherOrNot, 
which has > to access a server, retrieve weather details, and 
process them for you. > Now if the developer has reached a given 
agreement with the > weather-server provider, that his app will gain 
free access, under the > condition of not disclosing the login 
credencials, we are in trouble in > open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing 
so, we would disclose the cryptizing > code, opening up for people 
to break the cryptized code of the app, get > to the credencials, 
and then misuse it. > > Part of the agreement GW made with their app 
developers, by providing > the cryptizing feature, was to keep the 
app code an enclosed program. > They might get into legal issues, 
should they disclose the cryptizer, > thereby lay bare the very code 
of the app developer, who in turn might > sue GW for breaking the 
agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a > message Doug posted 
several years back, when someone claimed they had > broken the 
cryptizer. > > Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that 
some of the apps > directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold 
credencials for accessing the > servers of GW. It is unlikely that 
they want to have these credencials > open-sourced. In particular 
so, if you remember the attack someone gave > them a few years back, 
when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked, and > gave many a WinEyes 
user quite a shock the morning they turned on their > computer, and 
got a threatening message on their screen. > > Mind you, GW got into 
a cooperation with Microsoft, when they introduced > the WEForOffice 
program. Even here, they told that this agreement would > put them 
in specially close relationship with the ingeneers of > Microsoft. 
Who knows what closures might be involved there, and which > would 
be broken, had WE got open-sourced. > > Now let's move back to the 
answer Doug gave back in the spring this > year. The above is a bit 
of an elaboration of what he said. You will > find his answer in the 
archives, but in very short terms: > Â Â Â NOPE! WinEyes code 
CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other reasons, > due to the 
infringement of third-party agreements involved. > > All of this, 
actually leads me to once again raising the very question: >   Â Â  
Â Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code? > VFO might have 
bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But > they might 
not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And perhaps > that 
was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to rid the > 
market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug simply hit 
the > Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key for the 
Office > front-door? > > And to assume that VFO's tech personel 
would

Re: window-eyes open source?

where did you hear that from? and how can they purchase an open source 
product under the gpl?




On 9/10/2017 7:15 PM, ratshtron via Talk wrote:
don't push it! i have heard that they are wanting to purchase nvda and 
thus killing it as well.



Legend has it that on Sunday 9/10/2017 12:07 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk 
said:


I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their 
business profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more 
popular than jaws and would still be open source? On 9/10/2017 2:54 
AM, David wrote: > Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple 
of days after the > anouncement of the discontinued development of 
WinEyes. I will get back > to what Doug said back then. First of all, 
let's take a quick look at facts. > > Had it been as easy as WinEyes 
would have been a stand-alone software, > with all its coding done 
'in-house', things would have been pretty easy. > And had it been 
that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop the > software, 
they could have decided whatever they wanted. > > Things are not that 
easy! > First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the 
better > functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain 
agreements with - > for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party 
software, kind of > behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, 
now these techniques > might be disclosed to the public, threatening 
the products of the > third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of 
course would lead to people, > not working on assistive technology at 
all, to get hold of the key for > the backdoor of - say Adobe's 
reader - and use it for unwanted activity, > or even malware 
development. > > Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you 
loads of apps. Many of > them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a 
chance for the app developer > to cryptize his code, for protecting 
against peekers. This was a > benefit, for instance when the app has 
to access a server, and maybe > even use some login credencials, to 
perform the activity. Without me > knowing for sure, we could think 
of an app like WeatherOrNot, which has > to access a server, retrieve 
weather details, and process them for you. > Now if the developer has 
reached a given agreement with the > weather-server provider, that 
his app will gain free access, under the > condition of not 
disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble in > 
open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the cryptizing 
> code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of the app, 
get > to the credencials, and then misuse it. > > Part of the 
agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing > the 
cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program. > 
They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer, 
> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn 
might > sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, 
by a > message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed 
they had > broken the cryptizer. > > Furthermore, it has been 
confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps > directly from GW, like 
AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the > servers of GW. It is 
unlikely that they want to have these credencials > open-sourced. In 
particular so, if you remember the attack someone gave > them a few 
years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked, and > gave 
many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on their > 
computer, and got a threatening message on their screen. > > Mind 
you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they introduced > 
the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this agreement 
would > put them in specially close relationship with the ingeneers 
of > Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved there, and 
which > would be broken, had WE got open-sourced. > > Now let's move 
back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this > year. The 
above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will > find his 
answer in the archives, but in very short terms: > Â Â  Â NOPE! 
WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other reasons, > due 
to the infringement of third-party agreements involved. > > All of 
this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question: >   
Â Â  Â Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code? > VFO might 
have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But > they 
might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And perhaps > 
that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to rid the 
> market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug simply hit 
the > Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key for the 
Office > front-door? > > And to assume that VFO's tech personel would 
bother to plow the > thousands of lines of coding for WinEyes, in 
hope of hitting the > technique used to perform a simple

Re: window-eyes open source?

yes, and as far as donating I would rather donate my money to the NVDA 
project rather than giving it to VFO and spend money on tons of jaws 
bells and whistles I'll mostly never use.




On 9/10/2017 6:54 PM, Loy via Talk wrote:

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that 
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars for 
a very similar program.
   - Original Message -
   From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
   To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
   Cc: Josh Kennedy
   Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
   Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


   Why couldn't it happen?



   On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
   > I don't see that happening.
   >
   > -Original Message-
   > From: Talk 
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of 
Josh Kennedy via Talk
   > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
   > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
   > Cc: Josh Kennedy
   > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
   >
   > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business 
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws and 
would still be open source?
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
   >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
   >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
   >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look 
at facts.
   >>
   >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
   >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
   >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
   >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
   >>
   >> Things are not that easy!
   >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
   >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
   >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
   >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
   >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
   >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
   >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
   >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
   >> activity, or even malware development.
   >>
   >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
   >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
   >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
   >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
   >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
   >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
   >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details, and 
process them for you.
   >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
   >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
   >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
   >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
   >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
   >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
   >>
   >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
   >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
   >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
   >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
   >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
   >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
   >> broken the cryptizer.
   >>
   >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
   >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
   >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
   >> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
   >> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
   >> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
   >> their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.
   >>
   >> Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
   >> introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this

Re: window-eyes open source?

linux has done excellent penetrating the market, the mobile market that 
is. linux is on every android phone. and iPhones run a unixLike kernel. 
androids run a version of the linux kernel. on desktops linux is stuck 
in the past due to many more advanced things still making you need to 
use command line options. and linux is very fragmented on the desktop. 
linux is fragmented, NVDA is not fragmented with over 300 different 
versions out there. you cannot compare linux to NVDA, two different things.




On 9/10/2017 6:16 PM, Nick Sarames wrote:

How well has Linux done in terms of penetrating the market?

On 9/10/2017 4:23 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

Why couldn't it happen?



On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:

I don't see that happening.

-Original Message-
From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than
jaws and would still be open source?




On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:

Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick
look at facts.

Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.

Things are not that easy!
First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
activity, or even malware development.

Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
and process them for you.
Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.

Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
broken the cryptizer.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.

Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this
agreement would put them in specially close relationship with the
ingeneers of Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved
there, and which would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.

Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this
year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will
find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
    NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other
reasons, due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.

All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
    Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also

Re: window-eyes open source?

like comparing appples and oranges, linux is fragmented, NVDA is not, 
two different things.




On 9/10/2017 6:16 PM, Nick Sarames wrote:

How well has Linux done in terms of penetrating the market?

On 9/10/2017 4:23 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

Why couldn't it happen?



On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:

I don't see that happening.

-Original Message-
From: Talk
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than
jaws and would still be open source?




On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:

Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick
look at facts.

Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.

Things are not that easy!
First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
activity, or even malware development.

Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details,
and process them for you.
Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.

Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
broken the cryptizer.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.

Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this
agreement would put them in specially close relationship with the
ingeneers of Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved
there, and which would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.

Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this
year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will
find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
    NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other
reasons, due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.

All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
    Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But
they might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And
perhaps that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to
rid the market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug
simply hit the Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key
for the Office front-door?

And to assume that VFO's tech personel would bother to plow the
thousands of lines of coding

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread ratshtron via Talk

don't push it! i have heard that they are wanting 
to purchase nvda and thus killing it as well.



Legend has it that on Sunday 9/10/2017 12:07 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk said:

I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting 
eating into their business profits? If free open 
source NVDA would become way more popular than 
jaws and would still be open source? On 
9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote: > Matter of 
fact, this question was raised a couple of days 
after the > anouncement of the discontinued 
development of WinEyes. I will get back > to 
what Doug said back then. First of all, let's 
take a quick look at facts. > > Had it been as 
easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone 
software, > with all its coding done 'in-house', 
things would have been pretty easy. > And had it 
been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to 
develop the > software, they could have decided 
whatever they wanted. > > Things are not that 
easy! > First of all, what doug pointed out, was 
that to get the better > functionality of 
WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements 
with - > for instance Adobe - to get access to 
third-party software, kind of > behind the 
scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these 
techniques > might be disclosed to the public, 
threatening the products of the > third-party 
manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead 
to people, > not working on assistive technology 
at all, to get hold of the key for > the 
backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it 
for unwanted activity, > or even malware 
development. > > Secondly, WinEyes had a feature 
of offering you loads of apps. Many of > them 
are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for 
the app developer > to cryptize his code, for 
protecting against peekers. This was a > 
benefit, for instance when the app has to access 
a server, and maybe > even use some login 
credencials, to perform the activity. Without 
me > knowing for sure, we could think of an app 
like WeatherOrNot, which has > to access a 
server, retrieve weather details, and process 
them for you. > Now if the developer has reached 
a given agreement with the > weather-server 
provider, that his app will gain free access, 
under the > condition of not disclosing the 
login credencials, we are in trouble in > 
open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would 
disclose the cryptizing > code, opening up for 
people to break the cryptized code of the app, 
get > to the credencials, and then misuse 
it. > > Part of the agreement GW made with their 
app developers, by providing > the cryptizing 
feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed 
program. > They might get into legal issues, 
should they disclose the cryptizer, > thereby 
lay bare the very code of the app developer, who 
in turn might > sue GW for breaking the 
agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a > 
message Doug posted several years back, when 
someone claimed they had > broken the 
cryptizer. > > Furthermore, it has been 
confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps > 
directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold 
credencials for accessing the > servers of GW. 
It is unlikely that they want to have these 
credencials > open-sourced. In particular so, if 
you remember the attack someone gave > them a 
few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit 
was hacked, and > gave many a WinEyes user quite 
a shock the morning they turned on their > 
computer, and got a threatening message on their 
screen. > > Mind you, GW got into a cooperation 
with Microsoft, when they introduced > the 
WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that 
this agreement would > put them in specially 
close relationship with the ingeneers of > 
Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be 
involved there, and which > would be broken, had 
WE got open-sourced. > > Now let's move back to 
the answer Doug gave back in the spring this > 
year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of 
what he said. You will > find his answer in the 
archives, but in very short terms: >   Â Â  Â 
NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If 
for no other reasons, > due to the infringement 
of third-party agreements involved. > > All of 
this, actually leads me to once again raising 
the very question: >   Â Â  Â Does VFO even have 
access to the WinEyes code? > VFO might have 
bought AISquared, thereby also the former 
GWMicro. But > they might not have bought the 
copyright of the source-code. And perhaps > that 
was never intended either. Seems all they 
wanted, was to rid the > market of any 
competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug 
simply hit the > Delete-key, the last thing 
before he handed in the key for the Office > 
front-door? > > And to assume that VFO's tech 
personel would bother to plow the > thousands of 
lines of coding for WinEyes, in hope of hitting 
the > technique used to perform a simple task, 
is out of range. It would take > hours, days or 
even weeks, to figure why things have been done 
the way >

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread Loy via Talk

NVDA is not far from being as good as JAWS and  I can see it happening that 
people will download the free program instead of paying hundreds of dollars for 
a very similar program.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Kennedy via Talk 
  To: Window-Eyes Discussion List 
  Cc: Josh Kennedy 
  Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 4:23 PM
  Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?


  Why couldn't it happen?



  On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
  > I don't see that happening.
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: Talk 
[mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of 
Josh Kennedy via Talk
  > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
  > To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
  > Cc: Josh Kennedy
  > Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
  >
  > I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business 
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws and 
would still be open source?
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
  >> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
  >> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
  >> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look at 
facts.
  >>
  >> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
  >> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
  >> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
  >> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
  >>
  >> Things are not that easy!
  >> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
  >> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
  >> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
  >> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
  >> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
  >> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
  >> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
  >> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
  >> activity, or even malware development.
  >>
  >> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
  >> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
  >> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
  >> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
  >> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
  >> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
  >> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details, and 
process them for you.
  >> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
  >> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
  >> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
  >> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
  >> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
  >> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
  >>
  >> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
  >> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
  >> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
  >> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
  >> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
  >> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
  >> broken the cryptizer.
  >>
  >> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
  >> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
  >> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
  >> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
  >> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
  >> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
  >> their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.
  >>
  >> Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
  >> introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this
  >> agreement would put them in specially close relationship with the
  >> ingeneers of Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved
  >> there, and which would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.
  >>
  >> Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring th

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread Nick Sarames via Talk

How well has Linux done in terms of penetrating the market?

On 9/10/2017 4:23 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
> Why couldn't it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:
>> I don't see that happening.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Talk 
>> [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
>> Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
>> To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Cc: Josh Kennedy
>> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>>
>> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business 
>> profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than 
>> jaws and would still be open source?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
>>> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick 
>>> look at facts.
>>>
>>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
>>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
>>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
>>> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>>
>>> Things are not that easy!
>>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
>>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
>>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
>>> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
>>> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
>>> activity, or even malware development.
>>>
>>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
>>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
>>> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
>>> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
>>> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
>>> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
>>> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details, 
>>> and process them for you.
>>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
>>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
>>> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
>>> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
>>> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
>>>
>>> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
>>> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
>>> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
>>> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
>>> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
>>> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
>>> broken the cryptizer.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
>>> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
>>> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
>>> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
>>> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
>>> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
>>> their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.
>>>
>>> Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
>>> introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this
>>> agreement would put them in specially close relationship with the
>>> ingeneers of Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved
>>> there, and which would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.
>>>
>>> Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this
>>> year. The above is a bit of

Re: window-eyes open source?


Why couldn't it happen?



On 9/10/2017 3:47 PM, Dennis Long via Talk wrote:

I don't see that happening.

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business profits? 
If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws and would 
still be open source?




On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:

Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get
back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look at 
facts.

Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop
the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.

Things are not that easy!
First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to
people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the
key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted
activity, or even malware development.

Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app
developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This
was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and
maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity.
Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like
WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details, and 
process them for you.
Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble
in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the
cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of
the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.

Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
broken the cryptizer.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone
gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked,
and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on
their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.

Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they
introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this
agreement would put them in specially close relationship with the
ingeneers of Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved
there, and which would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.

Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this
year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will
find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
   NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other
reasons, due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.

All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
   Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But
they might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And
perhaps that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to
rid the market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug
simply hit the Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key
for the Office front-door?

And to assume that VFO's tech personel would bother to plow the
thousands of lines of coding for WinEyes, in hope of hitting the
technique used to perform a simple task, is out of range. It would
take hours, days or even weeks, to figure why things have been done
the way they were. Or, to find the part of a signed contract, that
possibly could

Re: window-eyes open source?

NVDA doesn't have to market its product very much these days, social 
media and things like that probably get the product out there.




On 9/10/2017 2:38 PM, Nick Sarames wrote:

That's a lot to ask of a non-profit making institution which likely does
not have the budget to market its product.

On 9/10/2017 1:07 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than
jaws and would still be open source?




On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:

Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get back
to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look at
facts.

Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop the
software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.

Things are not that easy!
First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to people,
not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the key for
the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted activity,
or even malware development.

Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app developer
to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This was a
benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and maybe
even use some login credencials, to perform the activity. Without me
knowing for sure, we could think of an app like WeatherOrNot, which has
to access a server, retrieve weather details, and process them for you.
Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble in
open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the cryptizing
code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of the app, get
to the credencials, and then misuse it.

Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
broken the cryptizer.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone gave
them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked, and
gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on their
computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.

Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they introduced
the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this agreement would
put them in specially close relationship with the ingeneers of
Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved there, and which
would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.

Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this
year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will
find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
       NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other reasons,
due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.

All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
       Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But
they might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And perhaps
that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to rid the
market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug simply hit the
Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key for the Office
front-door?

And to assume that VFO's tech personel would bother to plow the
thousands of lines of coding for WinEyes, in hope of hitting the
technique used to perform a simple task, is out of range. It would take
hours, days or even weeks, to figure why things have been done the way
they were. Or, to find the part of a signed contract, that possibly
could be renewed in VFO's favor. Far more

RE: window-eyes open source?

Your giving it more credit then it deserves.  It doesn't cut into jaws as
much as you claim.

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com]
On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 9:40 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?



On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
> Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of money 
> to purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that competitor 
> right back in business against you. And no business owner with a drop 
> of sense would want to do it anyway. Businesses like Apple, google, 
> and Microsoft buy a heap of smaller businesses every year. They don't 
> do so to turn around and give them away. FS is no doubt picking 
> through the Window-Eyes code looking for ways to improve JAWS or 
> features to add.
>
> On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
>> if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn 
>> around and just open source it. if the product was no longer 
>> supported by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with 
>> it, we moved on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not 
>> care.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
>>> No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number 
>>> one competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone 
>>> else to continue its development?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
>>>> hi
>>>>
>>>> Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported 
>>>> to get the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it 
>>>> up on the github website? then other developers could keep 
>>>> developing window eyes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of 
>>> the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>>>
>>> For membership options, visit
>>>
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy2
01%40comcast.net.
>>> For subscription options, visit
>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>> List archives can be found at
>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>
>> --
>> sent with mozilla thunderbird
>>
> ___
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
> author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit
>
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy2
01%40comcast.net.
> For subscription options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/dennisl1982%40
gmail.com.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

RE: window-eyes open source?

I don't see that happening.

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+dennisl1982=gmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:08 PM
To: David; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business profits? 
If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than jaws and would 
still be open source?




On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the 
> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get 
> back to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look at 
> facts.
>
> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software, 
> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop 
> the software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>
> Things are not that easy!
> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better 
> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with - 
> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of 
> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques 
> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the 
> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to 
> people, not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the 
> key for the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted 
> activity, or even malware development.
>
> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of 
> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app 
> developer to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This 
> was a benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and 
> maybe even use some login credencials, to perform the activity. 
> Without me knowing for sure, we could think of an app like 
> WeatherOrNot, which has to access a server, retrieve weather details, and 
> process them for you.
> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the 
> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the 
> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble 
> in open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the 
> cryptizing code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of 
> the app, get to the credencials, and then misuse it.
>
> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing 
> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer, 
> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might 
> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a 
> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had 
> broken the cryptizer.
>
> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps 
> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the 
> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials 
> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone 
> gave them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked, 
> and gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on 
> their computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.
>
> Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they 
> introduced the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this 
> agreement would put them in specially close relationship with the 
> ingeneers of Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved 
> there, and which would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.
>
> Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this 
> year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will 
> find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
>   NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other 
> reasons, due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.
>
> All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
>   Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
> VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But 
> they might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And 
> perhaps that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to 
> rid the market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug 
> simply hit the Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key 
> for the Office front-door?
>
> And to assume that VFO's

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread Nick Sarames via Talk

That's a lot to ask of a non-profit making institution which likely does 
not have the budget to market its product.

On 9/10/2017 1:07 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
> I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business 
> profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than 
> jaws and would still be open source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:
>> Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
>> anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get back
>> to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look at 
>> facts.
>>
>> Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
>> with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
>> And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop the
>> software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.
>>
>> Things are not that easy!
>> First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
>> functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
>> for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
>> behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
>> might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
>> third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to people,
>> not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the key for
>> the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted activity,
>> or even malware development.
>>
>> Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
>> them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app developer
>> to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This was a
>> benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and maybe
>> even use some login credencials, to perform the activity. Without me
>> knowing for sure, we could think of an app like WeatherOrNot, which has
>> to access a server, retrieve weather details, and process them for you.
>> Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
>> weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
>> condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble in
>> open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the cryptizing
>> code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of the app, get
>> to the credencials, and then misuse it.
>>
>> Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
>> the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
>> They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
>> thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
>> sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
>> message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
>> broken the cryptizer.
>>
>> Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
>> directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
>> servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
>> open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone gave
>> them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked, and
>> gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on their
>> computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.
>>
>> Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they introduced
>> the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this agreement would
>> put them in specially close relationship with the ingeneers of
>> Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved there, and which
>> would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.
>>
>> Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this
>> year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will
>> find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
>>       NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other reasons,
>> due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.
>>
>> All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
>>       Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
>> VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But
>> they might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And perhaps
>> that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to rid the
>> market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug simply hit the
>> Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key for the Office
>> front-door?
>>
>> And to assume that VFO's tech personel would bother to plow the
>> thousands of lines of coding for WinEyes, in hope of hitting the
>> technique used to perform a simple task, is out of range. It would take
>> hours, days or even weeks, to figure why things have been done the way
>> they were. Or, to find the part of a signed contract, that

Re: window-eyes open source?

I wonder what VFO would do if NVDA starting eating into their business 
profits? If free open source NVDA would become way more popular than 
jaws and would still be open source?





On 9/10/2017 2:54 AM, David wrote:

Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the
anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get back
to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look at facts.

Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software,
with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy.
And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop the
software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.

Things are not that easy!
First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better
functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with -
for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of
behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques
might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the
third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to people,
not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the key for
the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted activity,
or even malware development.

Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of
them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app developer
to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This was a
benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and maybe
even use some login credencials, to perform the activity. Without me
knowing for sure, we could think of an app like WeatherOrNot, which has
to access a server, retrieve weather details, and process them for you.
Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the
weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the
condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble in
open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the cryptizing
code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of the app, get
to the credencials, and then misuse it.

Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing
the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program.
They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer,
thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might
sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a
message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had
broken the cryptizer.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps
directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the
servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials
open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone gave
them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked, and
gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on their
computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.

Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they introduced
the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this agreement would
put them in specially close relationship with the ingeneers of
Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved there, and which
would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.

Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this
year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will
find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
      NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other reasons,
due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.

All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
      Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But
they might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And perhaps
that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to rid the
market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug simply hit the
Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key for the Office
front-door?

And to assume that VFO's tech personel would bother to plow the
thousands of lines of coding for WinEyes, in hope of hitting the
technique used to perform a simple task, is out of range. It would take
hours, days or even weeks, to figure why things have been done the way
they were. Or, to find the part of a signed contract, that possibly
could be renewed in VFO's favor. Far more cost-effective, and resource
sufficient, to simply look at the behavior of the WinEyes product, and
sit down developing the same bahavior from scratch. Even calling Adobe,
Microsoft, AVG, Avast and so forth, asking for a brand new contract. A
contract VFO already has in place. So my big guess is, VFO DO NOT NEED
the code of the WinEyes screen reader,

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread Russ Kiehne via Talk

Perhaps someone in side the vfo group can leak the source code.  This is 
what happened several years back with the telegard bbs software.  It became 
renegade!

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Kennedy via Talk

Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 6:19 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn
around and just open source it. if the product was no longer supported
by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with it, we moved
on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number one 
competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone else to 
continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

hi

Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported to get 
the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it up on the 
github website? then other developers could keep developing window eyes.

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/russ94577%40gmail.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread David via Talk

NVDA, has been developed under a GPL (General Public License) program, 
ensuring it will forever stay open-sourced. This has to be done from the 
very first minute, and it does require full transparency of the code, 
from day one.

The way WinEyes was developed, and sold, will have blocked for it to 
ever go into the same category of software. It could have been taken 
open-source, but never under the same program as NVDA, due to its past 
history. Comparing them, is like asking why you can give away your 
home-baked cake, whilst the baker has to ask 5 dollars for his product, 
then claiming he has to give it away for free, just because you manage 
to do so.

On the other hand, NVDA can never turn into a sold-for-money product. 
Anyone wanting a NVDA for sale, will have to start all over from 
scratch, developing a money-based code. That is all legal stuff, and too 
far above the heads of most of us. Smiles. If you have nothing else to 
do a Sunday afternoon, and really want to be bored for a couple of 
hours, take your time to read the GPL License document, under which NVDA 
has been developed. I do hold they have a link to it, right on their 
homepage.

Admittedly, I did open it once, read the first couple of pages, and gave 
up on the project. There simply is way too many clauses and ifs and 
thens, you never know even what they are talking about. And a search for 
some clarification on the net, just lead me into reading pages of 
lawyer's discussions, arguing back and forth, as to what the contract 
even means in a courtroom. So enjoy your reading project, should you 
decide to follow up on the material. Smiles.

On 9/10/2017 3:53 AM, Pamela Dominguez via Talk wrote:
> It didn't start out with the same business model as window eyes did.  
> Pam.
>
> -Original Message- From: Josh Kennedy via Talk
> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 9:40 PM
> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Cc: Josh Kennedy
> Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?
>
> then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?
>
>
>
> On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
>> Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of money 
>> to purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that competitor 
>> right back in business against you. And no business owner with a drop 
>> of sense would want to do it anyway. Businesses like Apple, google, 
>> and Microsoft buy a heap of smaller businesses every year. They don't 
>> do so to turn around and give them away. FS is no doubt picking 
>> through the Window-Eyes code looking for ways to improve JAWS or 
>> features to add.
>>
>> On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
>>> if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would 
>>> turn around and just open source it. if the product was no longer 
>>> supported by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with 
>>> it, we moved on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not 
>>> care.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
>>>> No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number 
>>>> one competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone 
>>>> else to continue its development?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
>>>>> hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported 
>>>>> to get the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it 
>>>>> up on the github website? then other developers could keep 
>>>>> developing window eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of 
>>>> the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>>>>
>>>> For membership options, visit 
>>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
>>>> For subscription options, visit 
>>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>>> List archives can be found at 
>>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> sent with mozilla thunderbird
>>>
>> ___
>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>>
>> For membership options, visit 
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/op

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-10 Thread David via Talk

Matter of fact, this question was raised a couple of days after the 
anouncement of the discontinued development of WinEyes. I will get back 
to what Doug said back then. First of all, let's take a quick look at facts.

Had it been as easy as WinEyes would have been a stand-alone software, 
with all its coding done 'in-house', things would have been pretty easy. 
And had it been that Doug and Dan had been the only ones to develop the 
software, they could have decided whatever they wanted.

Things are not that easy!
First of all, what doug pointed out, was that to get the better 
functionality of WinEyes, they had to reach certain agreements with - 
for instance Adobe - to get access to third-party software, kind of 
behind the scene. If they open-sourced the code, now these techniques 
might be disclosed to the public, threatening the products of the 
third-party manufacturer. In turn, this of course would lead to people, 
not working on assistive technology at all, to get hold of the key for 
the backdoor of - say Adobe's reader - and use it for unwanted activity, 
or even malware development.

Secondly, WinEyes had a feature of offering you loads of apps. Many of 
them are open-sourced, but WinEyes holds a chance for the app developer 
to cryptize his code, for protecting against peekers. This was a 
benefit, for instance when the app has to access a server, and maybe 
even use some login credencials, to perform the activity. Without me 
knowing for sure, we could think of an app like WeatherOrNot, which has 
to access a server, retrieve weather details, and process them for you. 
Now if the developer has reached a given agreement with the 
weather-server provider, that his app will gain free access, under the 
condition of not disclosing the login credencials, we are in trouble in 
open-sourcing WinEyes. By doing so, we would disclose the cryptizing 
code, opening up for people to break the cryptized code of the app, get 
to the credencials, and then misuse it.

Part of the agreement GW made with their app developers, by providing 
the cryptizing feature, was to keep the app code an enclosed program. 
They might get into legal issues, should they disclose the cryptizer, 
thereby lay bare the very code of the app developer, who in turn might 
sue GW for breaking the agreement. This is kind of backed up, by a 
message Doug posted several years back, when someone claimed they had 
broken the cryptizer.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed from Aaron, that some of the apps 
directly from GW, like AppGet, do hold credencials for accessing the 
servers of GW. It is unlikely that they want to have these credencials 
open-sourced. In particular so, if you remember the attack someone gave 
them a few years back, when the code of the GWToolkit was hacked, and 
gave many a WinEyes user quite a shock the morning they turned on their 
computer, and got a threatening message on their screen.

Mind you, GW got into a cooperation with Microsoft, when they introduced 
the WEForOffice program. Even here, they told that this agreement would 
put them in specially close relationship with the ingeneers of 
Microsoft. Who knows what closures might be involved there, and which 
would be broken, had WE got open-sourced.

Now let's move back to the answer Doug gave back in the spring this 
year. The above is a bit of an elaboration of what he said. You will 
find his answer in the archives, but in very short terms:
     NOPE! WinEyes code CANNNOT go open-source; If for no other reasons, 
due to the infringement of third-party agreements involved.

All of this, actually leads me to once again raising the very question:
     Does VFO even have access to the WinEyes code?
VFO might have bought AISquared, thereby also the former GWMicro. But 
they might not have bought the copyright of the source-code. And perhaps 
that was never intended either. Seems all they wanted, was to rid the 
market of any competition, period. Who knows, maybe Doug simply hit the 
Delete-key, the last thing before he handed in the key for the Office 
front-door?

And to assume that VFO's tech personel would bother to plow the 
thousands of lines of coding for WinEyes, in hope of hitting the 
technique used to perform a simple task, is out of range. It would take 
hours, days or even weeks, to figure why things have been done the way 
they were. Or, to find the part of a signed contract, that possibly 
could be renewed in VFO's favor. Far more cost-effective, and resource 
sufficient, to simply look at the behavior of the WinEyes product, and 
sit down developing the same bahavior from scratch. Even calling Adobe, 
Microsoft, AVG, Avast and so forth, asking for a brand new contract. A 
contract VFO already has in place. So my big guess is, VFO DO NOT NEED 
the code of the WinEyes screen reader, and never did. They needed the 
market, and that is what they've currently got.

On 9/10/2017 3:01 AM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
 > hi
 >
 > Is there any

Re: window-eyes open source?

What about termites that live in the court room? is that what you said?
I guess termites could live in courtrooms, couldn't they?

On 9/9/2017 10:37 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
NVDA is fine to use. I like its business model better than VFO's
business model.

On 9/9/2017 10:14 PM, mr. Chikodinaka Nickarandidum Oguledo via Talk
wrote:

your brakeing the law! you court room jude judy or juje patricia
dimigao in the court room

On 9/9/17, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

Your question makes absolutely no sense in the context of this
discussion. NVDA's business model has no correlation to VFO's ownership
of Window-Eyes.

On 9/9/2017 9:40 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:

then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?

On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would
turn

around and just open source it. if the product was no longer
supported by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with
it, we moved on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not
care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number
one competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone
else to continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.

For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.

For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of
the author

and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/ochikodinaka%40gmail.com.

For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-09 Thread mr. Chikodinaka Nickarandidum Oguledo via Talk

NVDA is fine to use. I like its business model better than VFO's
business model.

On 9/9/2017 10:14 PM, mr. Chikodinaka Nickarandidum Oguledo via Talk wrote:

your brakeing the law! you court room jude judy or juje patricia
dimigao in the court room

On 9/9/17, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

Your question makes absolutely no sense in the context of this
discussion. NVDA's business model has no correlation to VFO's ownership
of Window-Eyes.

On 9/9/2017 9:40 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:

then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?

On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:

No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number
one competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone
else to continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/ochikodinaka%40gmail.com.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

Re: window-eyes open source?

your brakeing the law! you court room jude judy or juje patricia
dimigao in the court room

On 9/9/17, Tom Kingston via Talk  wrote:
> Your question makes absolutely no sense in the context of this
> discussion. NVDA's business model has no correlation to VFO's ownership
> of Window-Eyes.
>
>
> On 9/9/2017 9:40 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
>> then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
>>> Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of money
>>> to purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that competitor
>>> right back in business against you. And no business owner with a drop
>>> of sense would want to do it anyway. Businesses like Apple, google,
>>> and Microsoft buy a heap of smaller businesses every year. They don't
>>> do so to turn around and give them away. FS is no doubt picking
>>> through the Window-Eyes code looking for ways to improve JAWS or
>>> features to add.
>>>
>>> On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
 if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn
 around and just open source it. if the product was no longer
 supported by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with
 it, we moved on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not
 care.



 On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
> No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number
> one competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone
> else to continue its development?
>
>
> On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:
>> hi
>>
>> Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported
>> to get the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it
>> up on the github website? then other developers could keep
>> developing window eyes.
>>
>>
> ___
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of
> the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
> For subscription options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

 --
 sent with mozilla thunderbird

>>> ___
>>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
>>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>>>
>>> For membership options, visit
>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
>>> For subscription options, visit
>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>> List archives can be found at
>>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>>
>> --
>> sent with mozilla thunderbird
>>
> ___
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
> and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/ochikodinaka%40gmail.com.
> For subscription options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>


-- 
for if you persavear. you will conker never fear. try try try again
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-09 Thread Tom Kingston via Talk

Your question makes absolutely no sense in the context of this
discussion. NVDA's business model has no correlation to VFO's ownership
of Window-Eyes.

On 9/9/2017 9:40 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:

then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?

On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of money
to purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that competitor
right back in business against you. And no business owner with a drop
of sense would want to do it anyway. Businesses like Apple, google,
and Microsoft buy a heap of smaller businesses every year. They don't
do so to turn around and give them away. FS is no doubt picking
through the Window-Eyes code looking for ways to improve JAWS or
features to add.

On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn
around and just open source it. if the product was no longer
supported by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with
it, we moved on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not
care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number
one competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone
else to continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-09 Thread Pamela Dominguez via Talk

It didn't start out with the same business model as window eyes did.  Pam.

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Kennedy via Talk

Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 9:40 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?

On 9/9/2017 9:37 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of money to 
purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that competitor right 
back in business against you. And no business owner with a drop of sense 
would want to do it anyway. Businesses like Apple, google, and Microsoft 
buy a heap of smaller businesses every year. They don't do so to turn 
around and give them away. FS is no doubt picking through the Window-Eyes 
code looking for ways to improve JAWS or features to add.

On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn 
around and just open source it. if the product was no longer supported by 
my business I'd just tell people do what you want with it, we moved on. 
take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number one 
competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone else to 
continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

hi

Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported to 
get the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it up on 
the github website? then other developers could keep developing window 
eyes.

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-09 Thread Pamela Dominguez via Talk

You have never run a business.  Neither have I, but as has been said before, 
take this example: you, a business owner,  paid money for this
product.  Your main reason for doing that was that you wanted to put it out 
of business, to cut out the competition.  So what kind of sense does it make 
that you would spend the money on it, then give it away?  Pam.-Original 
Message- 
From: Josh Kennedy via Talk

Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 9:19 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Cc: Josh Kennedy
Subject: Re: window-eyes open source?

if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn
around and just open source it. if the product was no longer supported
by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with it, we moved
on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number one 
competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone else to 
continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

hi

Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported to get 
the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it up on the 
github website? then other developers could keep developing window eyes.

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/joshuakennedy201%40comcast.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: window-eyes open source?

then how does NVDA work the way it does? and how is it so successful?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-09 Thread Tom Kingston via Talk

Your board of directors would not allow you to spend a pile of money to
purchase your competitor and then allow you to put that competitor right
back in business against you. And no business owner with a drop of sense
would want to do it anyway. Businesses like Apple, google, and Microsoft
buy a heap of smaller businesses every year. They don't do so to turn
around and give them away. FS is no doubt picking through the
Window-Eyes code looking for ways to improve JAWS or features to add.

On 9/9/2017 9:19 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn
around and just open source it. if the product was no longer supported
by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with it, we moved
on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number one
competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone else to
continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported to
get the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it up on
the github website? then other developers could keep developing
window eyes.

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

Re: window-eyes open source?

if I no longer cared about the product then yes I probably would turn
around and just open source it. if the product was no longer supported
by my business I'd just tell people do what you want with it, we moved
on. take it apart, open source it, whatever. we do not care.

On 9/9/2017 9:14 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote:
No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number one
competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone else to
continue its development?

On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported to
get the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it up on
the github website? then other developers could keep developing
window eyes.

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

--
sent with mozilla thunderbird

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

Re: window-eyes open source?

2017-09-09 Thread Tom Kingston via Talk

No. Think about it. If you were in business and bought your number one 
competitor would you turn around and give it away for someone else to 
continue its development?



On 9/9/2017 9:01 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote:

hi

Is there any possibility since window eyes is no longer supported to get 
the window-eyes source code make it open source and put it up on the 
github website? then other developers could keep developing window eyes.




___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

window-eyes open source?