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: >
   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/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/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
