Making Closed Software Act Like It's Open 157
The Installer writes "Researchers from the University of Washington have managed to add customization and accessibility options to proprietary software without ever touching the source code. Rather than alter program code, Prefab looks for the pixels associated with the blocks of code used to paint applications to a screen, grabs hold of them, and alters them according to whatever enhancements the user has chosen to apply. Any user input is then fed back to the original software, still running behind the enhanced interface."
Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it’s called GreaseMonkey.
Re:Screen Scraper (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? (Score:4, Informative)
Combine the two previous posts, and add NoScript in for good measure.
Greasemonkey + AdBlock Plus + NoScript = The Web, the way YOU want it to be. :)
And, just like the tool above, if a company changes their web page, you're looking at some redo on at least the Greasemonkey site. Be sure to add Greasefire in addition to Greasemonkey - lots of people have lots of great scripts that are at least good example code to pull from.
Re:Copyright infringement (Score:3, Informative)
It's only a derivative work if you distribute the proprietary software along with your enhancement. If the enhancement simply requires that the user already have a copy of the proprietary software in order to use it, then it's not a derivative work.
Re:The real question is- (Score:5, Informative)
A while back, there was a company called "CleanFlicks" that operated a movie rental service, aimed mostly at Fundie Mormons and the like. They took DVDs, reviewed them, and produced bowdlerized versions, which they then rented out. They were sued, and lost, on the grounds that they were, indeed, producing and trafficking in unlicenced derivative works.(IRRC, they purchased as many DVDs as they rented out, so they weren't illegally duplicating, ie. 1 purchase to 1 edited rental copy, in any useful way; but they were still smacked down). They exist today with a much reduced catalog of movies that fit their standards without editing.
A similar company "ClearPlay" used a different tactic. They provided specially programmed DVD players that were able to interpret a control file(programmmatic mute/unmute, FF/play, etc.) and rented unedited commercial DVDs, along with matching control files that, when used with their players, automatically "edited" the DVD as you watched it. The MPAA threw a fit; but the company survived legal challenge(it helped that congress, tipping their hat to "the children" passed a law to explicitly clarify the scope of copyright on this point). Since, unlike "CleanFlicks", they weren't actually creating a derivative work, just a control file that modified the behavior of the DVD player during playback, they were judged to be in a different category.
Again, barring the sorts of tricks that can be pulled with even weak DRM+DMCA, this sort of "customization kit" tech would probably fall into the "ClearPlay" side of the analogy. Actually selling edited binaries, even if you purchased a legitimate copy for each edited one you sold, would almost certainly put you in the "CleanFlicks" camp, and get you smacked down; but selling a customization package that modifies the appearance of a binary only at the point of execution on the end user's computer, or even selling a bundle of "copy of commercial software + installer for customization kit" would probably pass legal muster.
The only complication, of course, is that court decisions are, in practice, driven by a mixture of the text of the law and a somewhat emotive sense of "intent" or "desirable outcome". Protecting the kiddies from corruption generally wins you warm and fuzzies. It isn't clear that modifying the appearance of dialog boxes would have the same cultural clout(unless you could, say, find a nice test case involving a bunch of blind kids who are able to use $SOFWARE_X with their screenreaders for the very first time*wipes tear* or something of that sort).
Re:The real question is- (Score:4, Informative)
No more Snow Crash for you
Re:The real question is- (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention the legal issues. Or trying to keep up with changes intentionally made to break your efforts (just ask the WINE, SAMBA or iPod-Linux compatibility devs about this).
The first time I saw this article in ACM links I thought "neat, but what a waste of effort; I should send them a note letting them know that open source welcomes this sort of innovation with open arms".
Re:The real question is- (Score:3, Informative)
That's anyway better than being closed-minded and not using the best tools for the job.