[DECtalk] new to the list

Jayson Smith ratguy at bellsouth.net
Wed Mar 1 00:18:17 EST 2006 

Hi,
My current thought is that I won't be putting it on the site.  There are a
few reasons for this.  First, it isn't a demo application, but just a
program to let other applications speak.  So you can't use it by itself.
Second, it is Access32 which is a product that was actually sold, as opposed
to being a demo.  I don't know what the actual license agreements state but
as far as I am concerned the DECtalk demos can be downloaded, uploaded,
given away, fed to your pet hyena, etc.  This might not be the position that
Fonix is coming from, however.
Jayson.

----- Original Message -----
From: "shaun everiss" <shaun.e at xtra.co.nz>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list


> jayson should have the full version of dectalk 4.1 now I just sent him a
file.
> Weather he decides to upload the file is his business.
> At 12:30 p.m. 1/03/2006, you wrote:
> >where is the demo at?
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "shaun everiss" <shaun.e at xtra.co.nz>
> >To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:04 PM
> >Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >
> >
> >> there is a demo of dectalk 5.
> >> and aparently the voice is sort of back and the problem of the newer
crap
> >> voice was addressed.
> >> Aparently.
> >> There is still a split with some of the voices though.
> >> Some are better, others not.
> >> At 03:08 p.m. 28/02/2006, you wrote:
> >>>I heard it's sort of back. I heard about it in spam though. Whatever
> >>>service it is ripping off the name.
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: <mailto:Dectalk at aol.com>Dectalk at aol.com
> >>>To: <mailto:dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:10 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >>>
> >>>I guess there is.  I spoke with Corine today and she said Dennis use to
> >>>give out the codes.  So yes, the code is out there somewhere.
> >>>
> >>>Where is E-voice when you need it?  E-voice was a free voice mail
services
> >>>with tons of Dectalk groups on it.  Out of all those people I bet
someone
> >>>knew the codes.
> >>>
> >>>How the heck do we track it down?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>SNOOPI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:33:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> >>>ratguy at bellsouth.net writes:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>You mean, there is publicly available source code for DECtalk?
> >>>Jayson.
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Corine Bickley" <corine.bickley at gallaudet.edu>
> >>>To: "'DECtalk Discussions'" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> >>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:29 AM
> >>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for the encouragement, Snoopi, but unfortunately I have no
> >>>influence
> >>>on Fonix decisions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I was thinking tho that we might be able to get federal grant support
> >>>(NIH-NIDCD) for such a project. Whoever thinks this would be a good use
of
> >>>OUR tax dollars, please reply. If I can show enough need for the
project
> >>>(to
> >>>take publicly-available source code for DECtalk and update it to run
with
> >>>current operating systems and be usable to current screen readers and
> >>>accessible devices), then we can show the need. I'll volunteer to write
> >>>the
> >>>application, and have been able to get funding for similar projects in
the
> >>>past, and I'd be extremely interested in making this happen - IF enough
> >>>users out there want it. Please let me know what you think.
> >>>
> >>>corine
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>[mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com] On Behalf Of Dectalk at aol.com
> >>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:02 AM
> >>>To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, Corine is on this list.  When she reads that this can be done,
> >>>she'll
> >>>probably call Fonix and scream for permission.  I've been trying to
tell
> >>>her
> >>>that this could be done, but Fonix says it can't.  I know it can, I had
> >>>friends crack and modify other programs, even Windows professional.
> >>>Illegal
> >>>as you can get, but we did it.  So I laugh when Fonix says it can't be
> >>>done,
> >>>I know it can.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I hope we get the go ahead, it would put Fonix back on track.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>SNOOPI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:00:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> >>>shaun.e at xtra.co.nz writes:
> >>>
> >>>What we could do is approach the current owner of dectalk and ask them
if
> >>>we
> >>>could hack the old code out of either the old dectalk synths, or out of
> >>>old
> >>>software, say 4.3 and make some open source mod bassed on that.
> >>>We couldn't call that dectalk  or access 32.
> >>>Probably open dectalk simular to open office or whatever though.
> >>>We could have  someone set up something on sf.net.
> >>>There are loads of such opensource projects on linux, I don't see any
> >>>problem if we get permission to, if we just hacked the code and based
on
> >>>that made our own synth.
> >>>After they will not sell olded out dated software.
> >>>At 09:52 p.m. 27/02/2006, you wrote:
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>Let's not start World War III about this, but here are a few more
> >>>>thoughts
> >>>>on this.
> >>>>First, if you've ever seen the darker side of the net, you doubtless
know
> >>>>there are people out there who just love to take popular commercial
> >>>software
> >>>>packages and crack them.  Copy protection mechanisms are disabled,
> >>>>registration key systems are bypassed or, if not bypassed, a key
> >>>>generator
> >>>>program is included so you can make up your own key out of thin air.
In
> >>>>some cases, the crackers may even have to disable sanity checks built
> >>>>into
> >>>>the programs designed to prevent just this sort of happening.  Also
there
> >>>>are programs on the market designed to encrypt executables so they
can't
> >>>>be
> >>>>cracked so easily.  E.G. you write a program that's going to bring in
> >>>>millions, run it through an encrypter program before putting it on the
> >>>>market so crackers either can't crack it at all or have to do lots of
> >>>>extra
> >>>>work to get the job done.
> >>>>Also, I'm not saying that by disassembling a program you get the
original
> >>>>source.  You don't.  What you'd get is the machine code, probably
> >>>>something
> >>>>like assembly language for whatever microprocesser the program was
> >>>>designed
> >>>>for.  Let's say you took the Apple II Textalker program and
disassembled
> >>>it.
> >>>>You'd most likely get 6502 machine code.  Now Textalker may well have
> >>>>been
> >>>>written in Assembly, but the original source would probably have
> >>>>meaningful
> >>>>label names if not comments, and the developers of the original
program
> >>>>would know, or would have known, how to make changes to their version.
> >>>With
> >>>>a disassembled program you wouldn't get the meaningful label names,
> >>>comments
> >>>>or anything, and you wouldn't have the knowledge of the program's
> >>>>internal
> >>>>structure that the original developer had.  But still, if you knew
what
> >>>>you
> >>>>were doing you could probably modify the software, and you could
> >>>>certainly
> >>>>find out how certain things were done.  In fact, the author of Cider
> >>>>Press
> >>>>did disassemble some copy protection code on some old Apple II
cassette
> >>>>tapes to find out how it worked and how to circumvent it.
> >>>>As for the DECtalk software itself, I seem to recall that the DECtalk
PC
> >>>>uses an 80186 processor and the Express uses an 80386.  Both have some
> >>>>type
> >>>>of digital to analog convertor.  So it might not have been that
difficult
> >>>>for Digital to modify the software to run under Windows, since I don't
> >>>>assume they're emulating an old board.
> >>>>Jayson.
> >>>>
> >>>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>>From: "Tony Baechler" <tony at baechler.net>
> >>>>To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> >>>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:22 AM
> >>>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi.  I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here.  First, the
> >>>>> point of compiling a program in the first place is so that the
source
> >>>>> isn't easily apparent.  If it was possible to just randomly
> >>>>> disassemble software, we wouldn't need the GPL, BSD, Linux or any
> >>>>> other open source project.  I could just take the Windows kernel,
> >>>>> crack it, invent my own version and release it as the free kernel or
> >>>>> something.  It obviously doesn't work that way.  Also, remember a
> >>>>> previous discussion about emulating the Echo on the Apple II?  The
> >>>>> problem is the same in both cases.  The Echo is a chip on a card
that
> >>>>> goes into the computer.  The DEC-Talk is a separate
> >>>>> computer.  According to the manual, it has its own
> >>>>> microprocessor.  So, even if they had the firmware, it wouldn't do
> >>>>> them much good.  It's a nice thought though.  Considering that it
> >>>>> keeps getting sold, it's no surprise to me that they don't have the
> >>>>> 4.40 source, or won't release it if they do.  Personally I would
like
> >>>>> to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer, either using
> >>>>> already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or easily
programmable
> >>>>> software with good speech quality.  I'm not interested in what's
> >>>>> already out there for free, it all sounds like crap and won't sing
> >>>>> very well if at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 08:12 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote:
> >>>>> >I also don't understand how Fonix could have lost the code.  If the
> >>>>> >only
> >>>>> >copy is on a dead hard drive obviously they could send the drive in
to
> >>>>> >a
> >>>>> >data recovery company if they still have it, but those places are
> >>>>expensive.
> >>>>> >I mean, with the move from Digital to Force and then from Force to
> >>>Fonix,
> >>>>> >you'd think somebody somewhere would have something laying around.
I
> >>>>have
> >>>>> >the firmware version 4.2CD for the Express as well as the DECtalk
PC
> >>>>drivers
> >>>>> >which as I understand it actually contain the DECtalk code which is
> >>>>loaded
> >>>>> >onto the board at startup.  And of course the 4.3 demo is available
at
> >>>>the
> >>>>> >archive.  I don't know how to disassemble the software, but bet the
> >>>right
> >>>>> >person who knew what they were doing could do it and create machine
> >>>>> >code
> >>>>> >from which new equivalent source code for the lost versions could
be
> >>>>> >recreated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> DECtalk mailing list
> >>>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>DECtalk mailing list
> >>>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>DECtalk mailing list
> >>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> >>>----
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> DECtalk mailing list
> >>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>DECtalk mailing list
> >>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----------
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>DECtalk mailing list
> >>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>DECtalk mailing list
> >>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> DECtalk mailing list
> >> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >>
> >> __________ NOD32 1.1410 (20060215) Information __________
> >>
> >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> >> http://www.eset.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >DECtalk mailing list
> >DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk

More information about the Dectalk mailing list