[DECtalk] legality of decTalk

[William Prestwich]

Josh,
What I find the most annoying and frankly insulting to the person who put
in all the hard work to get it up and running again is you didn't seem
interested in the fate of the source code for all the years it has been
leaked and available - it's only when someone else got it working again
through their hours of hard work and expertise that you now seem to think
its 'our' code and for you to personally pursue previous owners of it to
try to get it open sourced. Now it comes across to me as though you are
putting the hard work of others at risk of being completely shut down when
you have done nothing to have got it working in the first place... Who are
you to decide any of this?


On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:56 AM jake mcmahanCharles Mcmahan <
mcmahan.jake at gmail.com> wrote:

>      You know something:
>
> I really like dectalk, it's a great synthesizer and it'd be cool to see
> it used in other types of tech such as iPhones and what not.  However,
> I'm seriously going to have to agree with an earlier post from William.
> Roger Dudley doesn't appear to be interested in communicating with any
> of us, so whether anyone talks to him simply doesn't make any
> difference.  I have had a conversation with mike from access solutions
> and he's a great guy.  I do believe what Mike is getting at is that
> Dectalk is too old for anyone to really care much what others do with
> it.  Still, I can't say I'd step into that realm myself because there
> may be some other legal issues that are more off the table.  In other
> words, I do see a little legal line which I wouldn't cross myself,
> though primarily I don't think too much feedback would be generated.  I
> just don't believe we should go bothering Roger and others who managed
> this years ago.  Just my opinion.
>
> On 12/1/2022 3:37 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> > I have known Mike for years, and while he he is many things, he is not
> > a lawyer.
> > I am not disputing your story in any way.
> > If Roger, who I assume is the person who wrote dectalk code does not
> > care, he can put this in writing.
> > securing this will not be hard, if indeed Roger does not care,
> > especially, unless you recorded that conversation, hearsay will likely
> > carry little legal protection.
> > Mike  did not build those dectalk units, the only sells them.
> > still, what harm  will it do to have Roger put in writing that he
> > gives full permission for whomever to develop the dectalk code. That
> > said party can freely distribute the code as they wish, and that Roger
> > relinquishes all future writes to the code hence forth?
> > Just a thought, better written then questioned later.
> > Karen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Dec 2022, joshknnd1982 at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I spoke to Mike Cozz from Colorado, maker of decTalk USB and triple-talk
> >> USB. He said it is ridiculous and laughable that people are going to
> >> be sued
> >> for doing what we want with decTalk source code. He also told me
> >> right on
> >> the phone that Roger Dudley does not care what we do with the source
> >> code.
> >> As far as Mike and Roger are concerned, DecTalk is ours to do with
> >> what we
> >> want. They don't even care if we distribute it with NVDA. If you don't
> >> believe me then email me off list and I can have you talk to Mike
> >> himself. I
> >> spent a few hours oon the phone with him discussing various tts
> >> software and
> >> hardware. Mike and Roger do not care and I heard it myself over the
> >> phone
> >> last night from Mike himself.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dectalk mailing list
> > Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> > https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> _______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20221202/2da507f1/attachment.htm>