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 > 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/northstarr1950%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
----------------------------------------
---
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
