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:[email protected]] 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 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 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. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> -- >> 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%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/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 > _______________________________________________ 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
