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
 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
_______________________________________________
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
