Re: window-eyes open source?
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/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 subscripti
Re: question about re installing wineyes
Why? On 9/9/2017 9:11 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote: > when stuff is no longer supported it should really be open source > otherwise it will be lost to time. > > On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: >> Hi Russ and all, >> >> As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you >> install Window-Eyes. >> Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread >> seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I >> think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. >> >> Hth, >> >> Rod >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Talk >> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >> Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk >> Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM >> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> Cc: Russ Kiehne >> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> >> It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the >> serial number that matters. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Carol and Roger via Talk >> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM >> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> Cc: Carol and Roger >> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> >> Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so >> the name and any other information that is asked for during installation >> would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy >> and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be >> a demo copy. >> >> >> On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >>> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >>> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >>> correct? >>> >>> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >>> >>> wrote: Hi Loy, Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was no longer being developed. I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. Thanks, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some countries you had to have a dongle. - Original Message - From: Rod Hutton via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Hi Loy, If you truly know this, then, that's fine. I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes There has never been an online activation. I doubt that you can get a downloadable copy from VFO now, but if you can get a copy from someone else then you could install it. Being it is no longer being sold or developed then using some one else's copy would not matter. - Original Message - From: Micallef Michael at FITA via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Micallef Michael at FITA Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:24 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes And then after installation of WE how about the online activation? -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+michael.micallef=gov...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of aad leeflang via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:07 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: aad leeflang Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes ok thanks i used window eyes 9.4 on my old pc but i did not get a cd newer than 9.0. i downloadee most versions. but how do i get a more acurate version though? or is there a way to copy the files from my old pc to my new pc. i guess not. aad On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:46:16 + Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: > Hi Aad, > > In order to install Window-Eyes for Windows 10, you require at least versi
Re: question about re installing wineyes
I have a friend of mine who is using a copy of window eyes that doesn't belong to him. He put in a phony name and it worked. The serial number is filled in for you. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 9:47 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Hi Russ and all, As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install Window-Eyes. Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. Hth, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the serial number that matters. -Original Message- From: Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so the name and any other information that is asked for during installation would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be a demo copy. On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this correct? On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] wrote: Hi Loy, Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was no longer being developed. I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. Thanks, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some countries you had to have a dongle. - Original Message - From: Rod Hutton via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Hi Loy, If you truly know this, then, that's fine. I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes There has never been an online activation. I doubt that you can get a downloadable copy from VFO now, but if you can get a copy from someone else then you could install it. Being it is no longer being sold or developed then using some one else's copy would not matter. - Original Message - From: Micallef Michael at FITA via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Micallef Michael at FITA Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:24 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes And then after installation of WE how about the online activation? -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+michael.micallef=gov...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of aad leeflang via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:07 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: aad leeflang Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes ok thanks i used window eyes 9.4 on my old pc but i did not get a cd newer than 9.0. i downloadee most versions. but how do i get a more acurate version though? or is there a way to copy the files from my old pc to my new pc. i guess not. aad On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:46:16 + Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: > Hi Aad, > > In order to install Window-Eyes for Windows 10, you require at least version 9.2. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of aad leeflang via Talk > Sent: September 8, 2017 5:15 AM > To: talk@lists.window-eyes.com > Cc: aad leeflang > Subject: question about re installing wineyes > > hello all > i have moved to a new pc with windows 10. > i w
Re: question about re installing wineyes
Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Thanks, Carol. That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Hi Rod, Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being distributed. Carol On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: Hi Russ and all, As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install Window-Eyes. Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. Hth, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the serial number that matters. -Original Message- From: Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so the name and any other information that is asked for during installation would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be a demo copy. On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this correct? On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] wrote: Hi Loy, Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was no longer being developed. I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. Thanks, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some countries you had to have a dongle. - Original Message - From: Rod Hutton via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Hi Loy, If you truly know this, then, that's fine. I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes There has never been an online activation. I doubt that you can get a downloadable copy from VFO now, but if you can get a copy from someone else then you could install it. Being it is no longer being sold or developed then using some one else's copy would not matter. - Original Message - From: Micallef Michael at FITA via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Micallef Michael at FITA Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:24 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes And then after installation of WE how about the online activation? -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+michael.micallef=gov...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of aad leeflang via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 201
Re: question about re installing wineyes
It would hurt the sales of JAWS. - Original Message - From: Russ Kiehne via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:23 AM Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Thanks, Carol. That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Hi Rod, Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being distributed. Carol On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: > Hi Russ and all, > > As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install > Window-Eyes. > Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread > seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I > think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk > Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Russ Kiehne > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the > serial number that matters. > > -Original Message- > From: Carol and Roger via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Carol and Roger > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so > the name and any other information that is asked for during installation > would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy > and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be > a demo copy. > > > On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >> correct? >> >> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >> >> wrote: >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >>> okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >>> no longer being developed. >>> I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >>> infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Talk >>> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >>> Behalf Of Loy via Talk >>> Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM >>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>> Cc: Loy >>> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >>> >>> If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some >>> countries you had to have a dongle. >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Rod Hutton via Talk >>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>> Cc: Rod Hutton >>> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM >>> Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes >>> >>> >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> If you truly know this, then, that's fine. >>> I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. >>> If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Talk >>> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >>> Behalf Of Loy via Talk >>> Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM >>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>> Cc: Loy >>> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >>> >>> There has never be
Re: window-eyes open source?
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: question about re installing wineyes
Did you ask the NVDA developers about adding network installs and citrix support? -Original Message- From: Josh Kennedy via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 6:33 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Josh Kennedy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes thing is they can't kill window eyes as long as people choose to use it. and if people keep sharing and passing it around then it won't die. if NVDA can only get network installs and citrix support it'll really cut into the jaws profits. On 9/9/2017 9:20 PM, Tom Kingston via Talk wrote: Businesses buy other businesses every day to either kill the competition or incorporate the technology into their own product lines. VFO bought AI Squared to kill Window-Eyes and replace their bad screen magnification program with the best selling ZoomText. On 9/9/2017 9:11 PM, Josh Kennedy via Talk wrote: when stuff is no longer supported it should really be open source otherwise it will be lost to time. On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: Hi Russ and all, As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install Window-Eyes. Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. Hth, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the serial number that matters. -Original Message- From: Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so the name and any other information that is asked for during installation would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be a demo copy. On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this correct? On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] wrote: Hi Loy, Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was no longer being developed. I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. Thanks, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some countries you had to have a dongle. - Original Message - From: Rod Hutton via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Hi Loy, If you truly know this, then, that's fine. I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes There has never been an online activation. I doubt that you can get a downloadable copy from VFO now, but if you can get a copy from someone else then you could install it. Being it is no longer being sold or developed then using some one else's copy would not matter. - Original Message - From: Micallef Michael at FITA via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Micallef Michael at FITA Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:24 AM Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes And then after installation of WE how about the online activation? -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+michael.micallef=gov...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of aad leeflang via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:07 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: aad leeflang Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes ok thanks i used window eyes 9.4 on my old pc but i did not get a cd newer than 9.0. i downloadee most versions. but how do i get a more acurate version though? or
Re: App updates
yes, I still use only we. On 9/6/2017 06:35, gosselin_louis via Talk wrote: Yes, I, too, would be interested Louis Gosselin gosselin_lo...@myfairpoint.net -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+gosselin_louis=myfairpoint@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Tom Fairhurst via Talk Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 6:45 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Tom Fairhurst Subject: Re: App updates Yes, I would be interested. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:52 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: App updates Hi everyone, I have updates for a couple of my apps, and even a new app or two, but VFO is no longer accepting app submissions. Is anyone still interested enough in Window-Eyes to wish for someone to set up an independent website for the purpose of app updates? I am trying to get a handle on who is still interested in receiving support for Window-Eyes, and so please circulate this question to any Window-Eyes users you know. Sincere thanks, Rod Hutton ___ 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/tfairhurst%40k c.rr.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/gosselin_louis %40myfairpoint.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/t.teal1%40verizon.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
RE: question about re installing wineyes
Well, JAWS won't be around forever. And it won't last for a while. Besides, NVDA is slowly attracting JAWS users, and sooner or later JAWS users will get smaller. In fact, I can see organizations, such as bookstores, etc use NVDA in the future. -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Loy via Talk Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 6:29 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Loy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes It would hurt the sales of JAWS. - Original Message - From: Russ Kiehne via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:23 AM Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Thanks, Carol. That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Hi Rod, Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being distributed. Carol On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: > Hi Russ and all, > > As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install > Window-Eyes. > Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread > seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I > think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk > Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Russ Kiehne > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the > serial number that matters. > > -Original Message- > From: Carol and Roger via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Carol and Roger > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so > the name and any other information that is asked for during installation > would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy > and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be > a demo copy. > > > On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >> correct? >> >> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >> >> wrote: >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >>> okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >>> no longer being developed. >>> I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >>> infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Talk >>> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >>> Behalf Of Loy via Talk >>> Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM >>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>> Cc: Loy >>> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >>> >>> If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some >>> countries you had to have a dongle. >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Rod Hutton via Talk >>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>> Cc: Rod Hutton >>> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM >>> Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes >>> >>> >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> If you truly know this, then, that's fine. >>> I don't feel as certain a
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, an
Re: question about re installing wineyes
NVDA just needs network and citrix support and it will be able to really hurt the sales of jaws. It would be great if someone would make an NVDA addon to give NVDA citrix and network installation server client support. On 9/10/2017 9:29 AM, Loy via Talk wrote: It would hurt the sales of JAWS. - Original Message - From: Russ Kiehne via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:23 AM Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Thanks, Carol. That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Hi Rod, Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being distributed. Carol On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: > Hi Russ and all, > > As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install > Window-Eyes. > Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread > seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I > think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk > Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Russ Kiehne > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the > serial number that matters. > > -Original Message- > From: Carol and Roger via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Carol and Roger > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so > the name and any other information that is asked for during installation > would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy > and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be > a demo copy. > > > On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >> correct? >> >> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >> >> wrote: >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >>> okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >>> no longer being developed. >>> I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >>> infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Talk >>> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >>> Behalf Of Loy via Talk >>> Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM >>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>> Cc: Loy >>> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >>> >>> If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some >>> countries you had to have a dongle. >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Rod Hutton via Talk >>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>> Cc: Rod Hutton >>> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM >>> Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes >>> >>> >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> If you truly know this, then, that's fine. >>> I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. >>> If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>>
RE: question about re installing wineyes
I can assure you that that is on the list of things for NVAccess. -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:11 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Josh Kennedy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes NVDA just needs network and citrix support and it will be able to really hurt the sales of jaws. It would be great if someone would make an NVDA addon to give NVDA citrix and network installation server client support. On 9/10/2017 9:29 AM, Loy via Talk wrote: > It would hurt the sales of JAWS. >- Original Message - >From: Russ Kiehne via Talk >To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >Cc: Russ Kiehne >Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:23 AM >Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > >Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the >public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. > >-Original Message- >From: Rod Hutton via Talk >Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM >To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >Cc: Rod Hutton >Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes > >Thanks, Carol. > >That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing >Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. >Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with >Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. > >Best, > >Rod > >-Original Message- >From: Talk >[mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf >Of Carol and Roger via Talk >Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM >To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >Cc: Carol and Roger >Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > >Hi Rod, > >Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is >still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can >be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI >may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to >continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being >distributed. > >Carol > > >On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: >> Hi Russ and all, >> >> As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install >> Window-Eyes. >> Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread >> seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I >> think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. >> >> Hth, >> >> Rod >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Talk >> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >> Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk >> Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM >> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> Cc: Russ Kiehne >> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> >> It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the >> serial number that matters. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Carol and Roger via Talk >> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM >> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> Cc: Carol and Roger >> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> >> Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so >> the name and any other information that is asked for during installation >> would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy >> and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be >> a demo copy. >> >> >> On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >>> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >>> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >>> correct? >>> >>> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >>> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Loy, >>>> >>>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >>>> okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >>>> no longer being developed. >>>> I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >>>> infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Rod >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Talk >>>> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >>>> Behalf Of Loy via Talk >>>> Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM >>>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >>>> Cc: Loy >>>> Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >>>> >>>> If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in som
Re: question about re installing wineyes
As I understand it, the install program is created with the imbeded serial number and is unique to that number. If I purchased an upgrade, using my serial number, it wouldn't install over a window-eyes with a different number. It isn't like jaws where you input the number, the number is input when the program is created. Hope that makes sense. 73 Butch WA0VJR Node 3148 Wallace, ks. On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Russ Kiehne via Talk wrote: I have a friend of mine who is using a copy of window eyes that doesn't belong to him. He put in a phony name and it worked. The serial number is filled in for you. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 9:47 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Hi Russ and all, As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install Window-Eyes. Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. Hth, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the serial number that matters. -Original Message- From: Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so the name and any other information that is asked for during installation would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be a demo copy. On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this correct? On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] wrote: > Hi Loy, > > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be > okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was > no longer being developed. > I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, > infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. > > Thanks, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of Loy via Talk > Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Loy > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some > countries you had to have a dongle. > - Original Message - > From: Rod Hutton via Talk > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Rod Hutton > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM > Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes > > > Hi Loy, > > If you truly know this, then, that's fine. > I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. > If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. > > Best, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of Loy via Talk > Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Loy > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > There has never been an online activation. I doubt that you can get a > downloadable copy from VFO now, but if you can get a copy from someone > else then you could install it. Being it is no longer being sold or > developed then using some one else's copy would not matter. > - Original Message - > From: Micallef Michael at FITA via Talk > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Micallef Michael at FITA > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:24 AM > Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes > > > And then after installation of WE how about the online activation? > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+michael.micallef=gov...@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of aad leeflang via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:07 PM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: aad leeflang > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > ok thanks > i used window eyes 9.4 on my old pc but i did not get a cd newer > than 9.0. > i downloadee most versions. > but how do i get a more acurate version though? > or is there a way to copy the files from my old pc
Re: question about re installing wineyes
Because it is direct competition, and that is why they bought it to begin with. Why do you think they filed the law suit against gw micro? 73 Butch WA0VJR Node 3148 Wallace, ks. On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Russ Kiehne via Talk wrote: Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Thanks, Carol. That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Hi Rod, Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being distributed. Carol On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: Hi Russ and all, As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install Window-Eyes. Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. Hth, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the serial number that matters. -Original Message- From: Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so the name and any other information that is asked for during installation would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be a demo copy. On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: > If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would > still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this > correct? > > On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] > >wrote: > > Hi Loy, > > > > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be > > okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it > > was > > no longer being developed. > > I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, > > infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rod > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Talk > > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > > Behalf Of Loy via Talk > > Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM > > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > > Cc: Loy > > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > > > If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some > > countries you had to have a dongle. > > - Original Message - > > From: Rod Hutton via Talk > > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > > Cc: Rod Hutton > > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM > > Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes > > > > > > Hi Loy, > > > > If you truly know this, then, that's fine. > > I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. > > If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. > > > > Best, > > > > Rod > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Talk > > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > > Behalf Of Loy via Talk > > Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM > > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > > Cc: Loy > > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > > > There has never been an online activation. I doubt that you can > > get a > > downloadable copy from VFO now, but if you can get a copy from someone > > else then you could install it. Being it is no longer being sold or > > developed then using some one else'
Re: question about re installing wineyes
you know what? The only other screen reader that comes close, historically-speaking, to NVDA's power, flexibility, and affordability, in my opinion, would have to be the old ASAP screen reader and tinyTalk screen readers for ms-DOS. Both NVDA and ASAP and tinyTalk for ms-dos dos can do stuff that no other screen reader can do. On 9/10/2017 1:34 PM, Sky Mundell via Talk wrote: I can assure you that that is on the list of things for NVAccess. -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:11 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Josh Kennedy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes NVDA just needs network and citrix support and it will be able to really hurt the sales of jaws. It would be great if someone would make an NVDA addon to give NVDA citrix and network installation server client support. On 9/10/2017 9:29 AM, Loy via Talk wrote: It would hurt the sales of JAWS. - Original Message - From: Russ Kiehne via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:23 AM Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Thanks, Carol. That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Hi Rod, Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being distributed. Carol On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: > Hi Russ and all, > > As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install > Window-Eyes. > Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread > seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I > think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk > Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Russ Kiehne > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the > serial number that matters. > > -Original Message- > From: Carol and Roger via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Carol and Roger > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so > the name and any other information that is asked for during installation > would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy > and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be > a demo copy. > > > On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >> correct? >> >> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >> >> wrote: >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >>> okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >>> no longer being developed. >>> I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >>> infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Talk >>> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@list
Re: window-eyes open source?
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 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
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: question about re installing wineyes
On Sun, 9/10/17, Butch Bussen via Talk wrote: Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes To: "Russ Kiehne via Talk" Cc: "Butch Bussen" Date: Sunday, September 10, 2017, 1:17 PM As I understand it, the install program is created with the imbeded serial number and is unique to that number. If I purchased an upgrade, using my serial number, it wouldn't install over a window-eyes with a different number. It isn't like jaws where you input the number, the number is input when the program is created. Hope that makes sense. 73 Butch WA0VJR Node 3148 Wallace, ks. On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Russ Kiehne via Talk wrote: > I have a friend of mine who is using a copy of window eyes that doesn't > belong to him. He put in a phony name and it worked. The serial number is > filled in for you. > > -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk > Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 9:47 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Rod Hutton > Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes > > Hi Russ and all, > > As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install > Window-Eyes. > Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread seems > to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I think you'll > run into copyright infringement if you do this. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] > On Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk > Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Russ Kiehne > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the > serial number that matters. > > -Original Message- From: Carol and Roger via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Carol and Roger > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so > the name and any other information that is asked for during installation > would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy > and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be > a demo copy. > > > On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: b >> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >> correct? >> >> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >> >> wrote: >> > Hi Loy, >> > >> > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >> > okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >> > no longer being developed. >> > I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >> > infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Rod >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Talk >> > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >> > Behalf Of Loy via Talk >> > Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM >> > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> > Cc: Loy >> > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> > >> > If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some >> > countries you had to have a dongle. >> > - Original Message - >> > From: Rod Hutton via Talk >> > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> > Cc: Rod Hutton >> > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM >> > Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes >> > >> > >> > Hi Loy, >> > >> > If you truly know this, then, that's fine. >> > I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. >> > If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rod >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Talk >> > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >> > Behalf Of Loy via Talk >> > Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM >> > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> > Cc: Loy >> > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> > >> > There has never been an online activation. I doubt that you can get a >> > downloadable copy from VFO now, but if you can get a copy from someone >> > else then you could install it. Being it is no longer being sold or >> > developed then using some one else's copy would not matter. >> > - Original Message - >> > From: Micallef Michael at FITA via Talk >> > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> > Cc: Micallef Michael at FITA >> > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:24 AM >> >
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 cost-ef
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 be r
Re: window-eyes open source?
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 >>> s
Re: question about re installing wineyes
I have had the same Window Eyes serial number since I purchased WE version 4.1. If I got a new version on CD it would have my original serial number in the installation files. If I downloaded an upgrade from their web site I would have to impute my serial number to get permission to download the upgrade file. . I am permitted to install on as many computers as I wish as long as I am the user. A person could install on someone else's computer but that would violet the license agreement. - Original Message - From: Butch Bussen via Talk To: Russ Kiehne via Talk Cc: Butch Bussen Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 2:17 PM Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes As I understand it, the install program is created with the imbeded serial number and is unique to that number. If I purchased an upgrade, using my serial number, it wouldn't install over a window-eyes with a different number. It isn't like jaws where you input the number, the number is input when the program is created. Hope that makes sense. 73 Butch WA0VJR Node 3148 Wallace, ks. On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Russ Kiehne via Talk wrote: > I have a friend of mine who is using a copy of window eyes that doesn't > belong to him. He put in a phony name and it worked. The serial number is > filled in for you. > > -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk > Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 9:47 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Rod Hutton > Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes > > Hi Russ and all, > > As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install > Window-Eyes. > Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread seems > to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I think you'll > run into copyright infringement if you do this. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] > On Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk > Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Russ Kiehne > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the > serial number that matters. > > -Original Message- From: Carol and Roger via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Carol and Roger > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so > the name and any other information that is asked for during installation > would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy > and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be > a demo copy. > > > On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >> correct? >> >> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >> >> wrote: >> > Hi Loy, >> > >> > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >> > okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >> > no longer being developed. >> > I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >> > infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Rod >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Talk >> > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >> > Behalf Of Loy via Talk >> > Sent: September 8, 2017 11:37 AM >> > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> > Cc: Loy >> > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> > >> > If you are in the US, you never had to activate WE. I think in some >> > countries you had to have a dongle. >> > - Original Message - >> > From: Rod Hutton via Talk >> > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> > Cc: Rod Hutton >> > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 11:01 AM >> > Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes >> > >> > >> > Hi Loy, >> > >> > If you truly know this, then, that's fine. >> > I don't feel as certain about this as you seem to be. >> > If you can explain this a bit, I'd appreciate it. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rod >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Talk >> > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On >> > Behalf Of Loy via Talk >> > Sent: September 8, 2017 10:40 AM >> > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List >> > Cc: Loy >> > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes >> > >> > There has never been an online activat
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 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 eve
Re: window-eyes open source?
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
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 for WinE
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 the former
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 >> 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 >>
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 task
Re: window-eyes open source?
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: question about re installing wineyes
you know what? The only other screen reader that comes close, historically-speaking, to NVDA's power, flexibility, and affordability, in my opinion, would have to be the old ASAP screen reader and tinyTalk screen readers for ms-DOS. Both NVDA and ASAP and tinyTalk for ms-dos dos can do stuff that no other screen reader can do. On 9/10/2017 1:34 PM, Sky Mundell via Talk wrote: I can assure you that that is on the list of things for NVAccess. -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy via Talk Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:11 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Josh Kennedy Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes NVDA just needs network and citrix support and it will be able to really hurt the sales of jaws. It would be great if someone would make an NVDA addon to give NVDA citrix and network installation server client support. On 9/10/2017 9:29 AM, Loy via Talk wrote: It would hurt the sales of JAWS. - Original Message - From: Russ Kiehne via Talk To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Russ Kiehne Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:23 AM Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Why doesn't the vfo group put out a working copy of window eyes in the public domain? This is what Freedom Scientific did with jaws for dos. -Original Message- From: Rod Hutton via Talk Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 11:33 AM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Rod Hutton Subject: RE: question about re installing wineyes Thanks, Carol. That's what I assume, and so why I'm counselling caution about distributing Window-Eyes even though VFO claims that it will no longer be developed. Besides, being their product, they can do whatever they want with Window-Eyes in the future, even resurrect it, should they choose to do so. Best, Rod -Original Message- From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On Behalf Of Carol and Roger via Talk Sent: September 9, 2017 2:13 PM To: Window-Eyes Discussion List Cc: Carol and Roger Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes Hi Rod, Yes, you are correct. Even if the company is gone, the copywright is still there. It is the same as a person writing a book. The book can be copywrighted for as long as someone wishes to keep it going. So, AI may have forwarded the copywright which would now fall on VFO to continue to maintain that, even though the product is no longer being distributed. Carol On 9/9/2017 12:47 PM, Rod Hutton via Talk wrote: > Hi Russ and all, > > As memory serves, you do have to enter the correct name when you install > Window-Eyes. > Regardless whether I'm right about that point, as much as this thread > seems to entertain the idea of sharing retail copies of Window-Eyes, I > think you'll run into copyright infringement if you do this. > > Hth, > > Rod > > -Original Message- > From: Talk > [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.window-eyes.com] On > Behalf Of Russ Kiehne via Talk > Sent: September 9, 2017 9:23 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Russ Kiehne > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > It's my understanding it doesn't matter what name you put in, it's the > serial number that matters. > > -Original Message- > From: Carol and Roger via Talk > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:38 AM > To: Window-Eyes Discussion List > Cc: Carol and Roger > Subject: Re: question about re installing wineyes > > Only sort of. The serial number is assigned to a specific person, so > the name and any other information that is asked for during installation > would need to be the same for both people. So, if you gave me your copy > and did not tell me your information, your copy, on my PC would still be > a demo copy. > > > On 9/8/2017 12:44 PM, brice Mijares via Talk wrote: >> If I sent someone a copy of my last installation copy, that person would >> still need an activation code or it would go into demo mode. Isn't this >> correct? >> >> On 9/8/2017 8:57 AM, Rod Hutton via Talk] >> >> wrote: >>> Hi Loy, >>> >>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to why you thought it would be >>> okay for someone to use someone else's copy of WE simply because it was >>> no longer being developed. >>> I would think it is still the property of VFO, and, therefore, >>> infringement of copyright to let someone else use it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Talk >>> [mailto:talk-bounces+rod_hutton=hotmail@lists.wi
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 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 archi
RE: window-eyes open source?
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 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
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. >>> >>> 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 >
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. >>> >>> 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,
