Making Closed Software Act Like It's Open

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Making Closed Software Act Like It's Open

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday April 6, 2010 @12:16AM from the latter-day-screen-scrape dept.

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."

157 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oblig. by Barefoot+Monkey · 2010-04-06 00:21 · Score: 0, Funny

Obligatory XKCD
The real question is- by mxh83 · 2010-04-06 00:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are we really that desperate to continue using closed software.
1. Re:The real question is- by WrongSizeGlass · 2010-04-06 00:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  'Closed software' is a fact of life for most users. This attempt at 'expanding' the functionality isn't very impressive, though, and won't have very many real world uses. What if you resize your monitor, do your 'customizations' all go to hell?
  
  I always liked using the plugin architecture for applications that provide it.
2. Re:The real question is- by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-06 00:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A more interesting question is the legality of this. If I distribute a customization kit for a closed source software, when is it considered like a crack ?
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
3. Re:The real question is- by tokul · 2010-04-06 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If I distribute a customization kit for a closed source software, when is it considered like a crack ?
  
  What's the difference between hacker and cracker?
  If your customization kit does not break closed source software licensing and you don't distribute it with software that you don't own, it is not breaking any copyright laws.
4. Re:The real question is- by natehoy · 2010-04-06 00:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I have to imagine that, if this software is intercepting the outputs of legally-paid-for closed source software and altering them, this could never be considered a crack. Then again, I suppose if Hollyweird can sue someone for building a custom version of a movie with the swearing and naughty bits bleeped out, while including a copy of the original version of the movie to make sure the end consumer has actually purchased a license, who knows?
  If this is considered a "crack", will software developers be able to stop me from purchasing a larger screen, or better speakers?
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
5. Re:The real question is- by Hurricane78 · 2010-04-06 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No we aren’t. But many (pretty dumb) people have the perception that we would, because they think that others would have that perception, because (1:) they said something alike, because they themselves think that others would have that perception, because... GOTO (1).
  Or in other words: Monkey, see, monkey think, monkey parrot. ^^
  What most people don’t know, is that it’s all in our head. Like fashion. Why did women think that wearing rubber boots with colorful flowers on them in the middle of the summer would be cool? Because “it was the fashion at the time“. And why was it that? Because some self-appointed “fashion expert” told them so. (Because he sold that stuff. But that’s another story.)
  But I think in this case there wasn’t even really a starting point. There was some perception that “that’s how it is”, because the closed source people acted more secure, because, being business people, they were trained that way.
  The thing is: Why would you let it just grow on us like a mind-virus, when you can change it just like that? After all, if it’s all in our heads, it only requires some of us to always securely act how it really is: We are gaining, winning, and rolling over them in an unstoppable wave!
  Have you ever noticed how a big mass of people switched their mind sets, and started to become a raging mob, or something like that? It’s that exact thing. It only needs a seed (you) who is so secure, that they start to doubt themselves. Then the rest is only a matter of that self-amplifying mechanism above, and time (depending on how strong your reality is).
  It’s a big war of psychology and social engineering, for the minds of people. And I don’t let the politicians, mass media or greedy multinational corporations win it. :)
  Think like this: You’re a mind hacker. And the mind is by far the most complex computer ever. Isn’t that much cooler than doing it to such a (in comparison) ridiculously simple thing as a computer (network)?
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
6. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  For certain software, there is simply not an open source alternative that comes close to offering the same features, functionality and intuitiveness.
  Standard example: Photoshop. The closest open source has is GIMP, which isn't even remotely in the same ballpark quality-wise.
7. Re:The real question is- by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-04-06 00:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  While the power of the almighty EULA and(in the case of software with embedded DRM/anti-tampering features, the DMCA) might well cloud the issue, there is an analogy worth looking at.
  
  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).
8. Re:The real question is- by Razalhague · 2010-04-06 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't it be considered a derivative work?
9. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:00 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  'Closed software' is a fact of life for sheeple. This attempt at 'stifling' freedom isn't very impressive, though, and will hinder very many real world users. What if you resize your monitor, does your 'customizations' cause your software to go to DRM hell via deactivation?
  There, fixed that for you.
10. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Oops, forgot to mention: Any precedent established by cases surrounding "Game Genie", "Gameshark" and the various other cartridge pass-through modding systems might be even more relevant.
  
  Again, the DMCA can be used in some rather nasty ways; but my understanding (IANAL) is that "Game Genie" and friends, while strongly disliked by the console makers, generally survived legal challenge, because they were pretty clearly only useful for letting people who had purchased cartridges make fair use of them on their own personal systems. Had those passthrough-mod systems also included, say, cartridge ROM dump capabilities, they might well have been smacked down.
11. Re:The real question is- by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-06 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  It is most probably breaking the EULA.
  And experience has taught me to be weary of what seems rational, logical and full of common sense in the legal world...
  
  When I read such things on the project made to allow OS X to run on a PC :
  http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
  I can only think that someone will complain sooner or later. I can't see Adobe accepting the sale of something customizing paintshop pro without getting some bucks from it.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
12. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, with ClearPlay you buy the DVD player, subscribe to their service and download definitions to use with movies that you have purchased. You do not have to buy your movies from them.
13. Re:The real question is- by Nadaka · 2010-04-06 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  No it can not.
14. Re:The real question is- by westlake · 2010-04-06 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are we really that desperate to continue using closed software.
  That decision will be made by the user. For whom the program is always more than the code.
15. Re:The real question is- by tokul · 2010-04-06 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  I can't see Adobe accepting the sale of something customizing paintshop pro without getting some bucks from it.
  
  I don't think that Adobe cares about PSP. It is Corel and Jasc product.
  You can sell action scripts for photoshop without paying greedy bastards at Adobe.
  osx86project is about running MacOS on hardware which is not supported by Apple. Apple might have some legal and not legal thoughs about it, because OSX is add-on to their hardware and running it on other hardware cuts their profits.
16. Re:The real question is- by Animaether · 2010-04-06 01:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I can see many uses for this - but then, I've got AutoIt for the sorts of things I'm thinking of already.
  I think the article title and summary are completely bunk, though. They're not making the software any more -open- than it was before; If you have a button that writes "Hello World" to a file, then you can replace that button with a contrast-rich enlarged version with excellent text-to-speech functionality, or make it a bouncing spinny glowing orb like something out of Kai Krause's mind... but pressing it is still going to write "Hello Word" to a file. It doesn't make it actually do anything differently from before.
  It's fun that they can detect UI elements out of a bitmap, but there's so many non-standard UI elements in play that this is going to fail horribly on a lot of UIs. Maybe that means we should stop using custom UI elements, but sometimes those custom UI elements simply are more appropriate than the widgets that come with the OS/widget provider.
17. Re:The real question is- by LordLucless · 2010-04-06 01:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No more Snow Crash for you
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
18. Re:The real question is- by silverglade00 · 2010-04-06 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Stardock doesn't seem to have any legal problems from doing this.
19. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Or software could be released with source code, modifiable by the purchaser just using plain copyright. It's not a new idea.
20. Re:The real question is- by psnyder · 2010-04-06 01:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  if this software is intercepting the outputs of legally-paid-for closed source software and altering them, this could never be considered a crack.
  Here's Facebook threatening a Greasemonkey script developer for pretty much the same thing (altering the output after it's in the browser).
21. Re:The real question is- by Nerdposeur · 2010-04-06 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  I can't see Adobe accepting the sale of something customizing paintshop pro without getting some bucks from it.
  Especially if it uses the commercial product's name in its advertising.
22. Re:The real question is- by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-06 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  How about skipping the nag screen of a freeware ?
  To take a real example, last time I clicked on a .zip file on a vista computer, winzip opened and started to count slowly the number of days it was used without being bought. I have the feeling that if I were to bypass this, a court could feel I am circumventing something.
  
  (it helped that congress, tipping their hat to "the children" passed a law to explicitly clarify the scope of copyright on this point)
  If they had to do this, it shows that the matter is not evident with regard to the law.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
23. Re:The real question is- by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-06 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I meant photoshop, not paintshop pro...
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
24. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yea, And the entire internet will fail when monitors with larger resolutions begin to sell, since everything will look different.......
  They don't need to hardcode the position and timing for everysingle pixel coloration for this to work. You know that thing you can do with computers where they can handle dynamic changes, programming I think it's called, it's quite the rave these days.
25. Re:The real question is- by corbettw · 2010-04-06 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  What if you resize your monitor, do your 'customizations' all go to hell?
  How often does that happen, though? Personally, I've used laptops pretty much exclusively for the last six or seven years. Which means resizing the monitor means getting an entirely new system, something I only do once every two years or so. I'm more than happy to go through the steps to get this kind of thing working once every two years if it means I can customize software I have to use for work to make it easier for me to do my job.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
26. Re:The real question is- by omnichad · 2010-04-06 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  If a magnifying glass or keyboard can, sure.
27. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  I thought they wrote a DVD software that made the dvd player skip these sections or mute them, but otherwise leaving the original DVD in tact?
28. Re:The real question is- by npsimons · 2010-04-06 02:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Closed software' is a fact of life for most users. This attempt at 'expanding' the functionality isn't very impressive, though, and won't have very many real world uses. What if you resize your monitor, do your 'customizations' all go to hell?
  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".
  
  --
  Nathan's blog
29. Re:The real question is- by Fast+Thick+Pants · 2010-04-06 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Happens a lot if you log in via RDP.
30. Re:The real question is- by pnewhook · 2010-04-06 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I would say the same about open source software. Especially the ones with the licence agreement that forces me to publish any derivative works.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
31. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  And experience has taught me to be weary of what seems rational, logical and full of common sense in the legal world...
  Experience has taught me to be wary of people who misuse the word weary.
32. Re:The real question is- by pnewhook · 2010-04-06 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Then again, I suppose if Hollyweird can sue someone for building a custom version of a movie with the swearing and naughty bits bleeped out..
  Actually that bugs the hell out of me. If a movie comes on TV I want the see the movie as intended, not some hacked up derivative based on someone elses misdirected moral values. I should decide what I can and cannot watch - not someone else. For the most part I've stopped watching movies broadcast on US television because they are so hacked to pieces they are unwatchable. Usually in Canada a movie on TV will have warnings on it stating what the content is, but not be edited.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
33. Re:The real question is- by f3rret · 2010-04-06 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it would be considered a crack. Far as I am aware as long as you do not actually alter the code of the executable and only alter whatever the program keeps in memory (such as the pixels being painted on the screen) then it is legal.
  I know of at least one multiplayer game that has a loader available to allow people to play the game through an unofficial multiplayer portal, and far as I am aware it is not illegal.
  That being said, I think the only reason it is not considered illegal is because none of the software houses are fully aware of these things yet, soon as one of the larger software companies gets word that this is happening I am fairly sure they'll get uppity and take the developers of the customization kit to court - and win.
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
34. Re:The real question is- by kvezach · 2010-04-06 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I always liked using the plugin architecture for applications that provide it.
  
  And for those that don't, there's always IDA and Olly.
35. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  "Polishing a turd" is the phrase that comes to mind. 99% of proprietary software are worse than their open source counterparts, and then we have 1% that is "irreplaceable" - because nobody has written an open source equivalent - yet.
36. Re:The real question is- by RalphSleigh · 2010-04-06 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Watch the youtube video, they have the software running on Vista work on widgets drawn in a OSX remote desktop, this can totally handle you moving windows around/changing screen resolution. I would be more worried if it can work on loads of different Gnome GTK themes, as the widgets will be less consistent.
  
  --
  Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
37. Re:The real question is- by Exitar · 2010-04-06 02:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's anyway better than being closed-minded and not using the best tools for the job.
38. Re:The real question is- by AmyRose1024 · 2010-04-06 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  But that's the thing. WinZip isn't freeware. Try IZarc if you want something that really is freeware.
39. Re:The real question is- by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-04-06 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  ClearPlay did, and survived.
  
  CleanFlicks didn't, using actual edited DVDs, and go smacked down.
40. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  that's a great tool to write spyware ;)
41. Re:The real question is- by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-04-06 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  How about skipping the nag screen of a freeware ? To take a real example, last time I clicked on a .zip file on a vista computer, winzip opened and started to count slowly the number of days it was used without being bought. I have the feeling that if I were to bypass this, a court could feel I am circumventing something.
  That's the sort of thing that I was thinking of when I said '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".' Unless copyright law is particularly clear on what exactly "derivative work" means(and, given that programmatic graphical screen-scraping and realtime modification of a program's apparent user interface without actually modifying the binary almost certainly wasn't even dreamt of when the law was last revised I'm guessing that it isn't particularly clear), or what it actually means to "circumvent" a protection measure, the judge(quite possibly a nontechie) is going to have to pull some more-or-less-tortured analogy out and present it as the verdict.
  
  This isn't an "zOMG EVIL ACTIVIST JUDGESE!!!!" thing, it isn't clear what else they can do under the circumstances, unless we want to leave every court case that isn't the most trivial of basic-fact-finding cases with a "Hey guys, no verdict is available, please ask congress to clarify." message. However, it does mean that a lot of decisions, particularly in areas where technology has changed substantially since the law was written, basically involve an underdetermined choice of which analogy to apply, rather than a simple algorithmic application of an existing standard. Even if the judge is doing his best to be objective, it is quite likely that more sympathetic cases will typically get more sympathetic analogies, while less sympathetic cases will get less sympathetic ones.
  
  If a test case involving this screen-scraping tech being used to provide an accessability interface for the blind/visually impaired for a program that didn't have one, I suspect that it would be vindicated hands down(if any company would even be mean/stupid enough to sue). If exactly the same technology were being used to hide nag screens, it would be much more likely to draw an analogy to copyright circumvention, since that case "feels" more theftish.
  
  What would happen in a purely neutral case(say, somebody decides that a program really needs a CLI interface, and uses this screen-scraper to write a CLI-driven shim) would be interesting to observe.
42. Re:The real question is- by cbiltcliffe · 2010-04-06 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's not expanding the functionality. It's modifying the GUI.
  Maybe adding an option checkbox that wasn't there, or rearranging some dialog somewhere.
  Without the source code, and more specifically, modifying the source code, it's impossible to add features in any meaningful sense.
  Sure, you could add a "show all images with red background" checkbox, or something like that, and modify the program display output appropriately, but I can't imagine any case where something like that would be called a feature.
  But then, I'm not among the 95% of the population that considers "Ooooh, shiny!" to be a feature, either.....
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
43. Re:The real question is- by Abcd1234 · 2010-04-06 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  And Facebook isn't on sound legal ground, either.
  Just because they threatened, doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on. They're just betting the developer folds before they go to court and find the case summarily dismissed.
44. Re:The real question is- by natehoy · 2010-04-06 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Right.
  But the company in question packaged the original movie along with a "sanitized" version. You get to decide what you can and cannot watch, by either pulling the original or the "sanitized" version from the DVD holder.
  Silly? Sure. If I don't like a movie in its original, I probably won't like a sanitized version either.
  But it's not affecting your choice to watch movies the way you want to - it's offering a service that is optional and people pay extra for.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
45. Re:The real question is- by John+Hasler · 2010-04-06 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  > I have the feeling that if I were to bypass this, a court could feel I am
  > circumventing something.
  Your feeling is incorrect.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
46. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  how do you know? you took information technology law III and have a JD from the University of Google?
47. Re:The real question is- by John+Hasler · 2010-04-06 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  > I would say the same about open source software. Especially the ones with
  > the licence agreement that forces me to publish any derivative works.
  What open source license does that? (Hint: the GPL, for example, does not require you to publish anything.)
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
48. Re:The real question is- by Nadaka · 2010-04-06 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Is a fork, knife and plate a derivative work of a pork chop? No. But it extends the default interface (holding with your hand and gnawing on it) for convenience of the user.
49. Re:The real question is- by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-04-06 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Then again, I suppose if Hollyweird can sue someone for building a custom version of a movie with the swearing and naughty bits bleeped out, while including a copy of the original version of the movie to make sure the end consumer has actually purchased a license, who knows?
  Except just because you have a license to the movie doesn't mean you get to do with it as you please. Fair Use wouldn't cover creating a whole new version of the movie with parts cut out and swearing bleeped.
50. Re:The real question is- by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-04-06 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  But the company in question packaged the original movie along with a "sanitized" version.
  
  So what? How does that change the fact that they still need permission to create the sanitized version? Such a work wouldn't fall under fair use. This seems to be the same bullshit logic that people used to claim about downloading game ROMs. You don't just get to download ROMs off the internet just because you may own the original game.
51. Re:The real question is- by spazdor · 2010-04-06 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  sometimes those custom UI elements simply are more appropriate than the widgets that come with the OS/widget provider.
  but then sometimes they are simply included for no reason in a program in order to make it bigger. When was the last time you bought a printer or scanner (or both) for a Windows machine? I'll bet you anything that the bundled software came with some jinkety-ass homescript "hardware manager" made by HP or Canon or whatever, with a 45MB executable binary, using a statically linked UI toolkit which is both uglier and heavier than the widgets provided by Windows.
  You know they type - there's no distinction between the title bar and the rest of the window, so you can just click on *any* part of the window to drag it around. The radio buttons are actually implemented as little clickable images(stored uncompressed in the executable) that look like radio buttons.
  AUGH I HATE THEM SO MUCH
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
52. Re:The real question is- by b4dc0d3r · 2010-04-06 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I enjoy customizing my apps by sub-classing windows or whatever else is needed.
  I fixed a particularly stupid application for work which requires you to click on a calendar and choose a date, and again on another calendar. Clicking OK updates the data source, but clears all the values. So every day when you're going through today's data, you select both calendars and click OK and re-set both calendars. Lots of wasted time. I updated the button click to save the calendar date, call the normal click function, then restore the calendar. Took a 4 hour process down to 20 minutes.
  IDA helped confirm a few things, but mostly it was just Spy++ from MSVS 6 that helped me figure out what was needed. I could have gotten all cool and stuff, but I just put an injector in the same folder, and a .dll which gets loaded by the injector. Open the app and open the injector and enjoy your efficiency. The author would not consider making an update so I did it for them.
  No hack, no crack, no DRM, no derivative works because I was simply calling functions which the application made available.
  For those who use Avaya CentreVu, I screen-scraped the agent display so it could send alerts when threshold settings were hit (beep on yellow, send a page on red). Again just using existing functionality and an injector.
  I also remember an assembly "reversing" tutorial which added line numbers to Notepad, but that was invasive because it altered the underlying code. I always wanted to go back and do it using a less invasive method, but I never thought about simply grabbing the pixels and shifting them, adding appropriate line numbers based on the scrollbar window properties.
  This application of an ages-old technique is particularly interesting because it provides legal coverage for compliance with the ADA, if you happen to be subject to that. Clever.
53. Re:The real question is- by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  Hollywood can probably do that since the edited movie is a derivative work with no artistic/creative value of it's own. I suppose you could call it a satire if you took all the swearing and violence out of a tarantino film though...
54. Re:The real question is- by pnewhook · 2010-04-06 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about movies broadcast on TV.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
55. Re:The real question is- by pnewhook · 2010-04-06 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  What open source license does that? (Hint: the GPL, for example, does not require you to publish anything.)
  From Wiki on GPL:
  Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
  Many distributors of GPL'ed programs bundle the source code with the executables. An alternative method of satisfying the copyleft is to provide a written offer to provide the source code on a physical medium (such as a CD) upon request. In practice, many GPL'ed programs are distributed over the Internet, and the source code is made available over FTP or HTTP. For Internet distribution, this complies with the license.
  Sure seems like a requirement to publish the source of any derivative works to me. If you have to use open source, BSD license seems way less Nazi like to me.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
56. Re:The real question is- by mikechant · 2010-04-06 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Sure seems like a requirement to publish the source of any derivative works to me.
  That's twice now you've missed out the crucial qualification "if and only if you want to distribute the derivative works". Anybody might think you were deliberately trying to mis-represent the GPL.
  If you have to use open source, BSD license seems way less Nazi like to me.
  So it's 'Nazi' to release code under your freely chosen license and expect people who have freely chosen to accept that license (by modifying and redistributing that code) to follow that license?
  Which precise 'Nazi' trait does this illustrate? Freedom? Choice? Use of standard basic contract and copyright type laws?
57. Re:The real question is- by DaVince21 · 2010-04-07 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Creating one, but not distributing, I'd guess. And when they distribute the "profile" or whatever they call the thing that would enhance the app, they're not actually distributing a derivative work of the original application.
  
  --
  I am not devoid of humor.
58. Re:The real question is- by pnewhook · 2010-04-07 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why would I write something if I wasn't going to distribute it? I'm talking real world here, not hobby.
  The Nazi concept of forcing me to do something against my will. If I value add, I want to be paid for my work performed; I don't want to be forced to give it away. Giving away source code should be a choice, not forced upon you.
  Like I said, BSD is way more reasonable in that you can choose to resubmit your changes. GPL you dont have that choice == Nazi.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
59. Re:The real question is- by mikechant · 2010-04-12 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  The Nazi concept of forcing me to do something against my will. If I value add, I want to be paid for my work performed; I don't want to be forced to give it away. Giving away source code should be a choice, not forced upon you.
  There you go again with this 'forced'. I don't think you understand the word. No one is forcing you to GPL *your* code - as you appear to admit by implying you use the BSD license. No one is forcing you to use other people's GPLed code.
  *If* you modify and distribute other people's GPLed code you have *freely chosen* to accept the conditions that they have *freely chosen* for *their* code. If you don't like their conditions for their code, you don't have to use it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
  Also, being 'forced to do something' is in no way a *specificly* Nazi trait since it could apply to any authoritarian system, and in fact to certain aspects of all democracies (being forced to pay taxes for things you don't agree with, for example), so you appear to have chosen that term purely for flamebait purposes.
60. Re:The real question is- by pnewhook · 2010-04-13 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't like their conditions for their code, you don't have to use it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
  Which is why I dont use GPL code, nor release anything I write under GPL. It's basically useless to me.
  
  Also, being 'forced to do something' is in no way a *specificly* Nazi trait since it could apply to any authoritarian system, and in fact to certain aspects of all democracies (being forced to pay taxes for things you don't agree with, for example), so you appear to have chosen that term purely for flamebait purposes.
  Sorry. Next time I'll use the word 'Republican' instead of 'Nazi' but I usually reserve that word for removal of personal liberties or implying massive public debt.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Screen Scraper by drrck · 2010-04-06 00:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is called a screen scraper, and likes to break with updates to the underlying program, right?
1. Re:Screen Scraper by clone53421 · 2010-04-06 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Great for automating repetitive actions in the meantime, though...
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
2. Re:Screen Scraper by BarryJacobsen · 2010-04-06 00:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If you RTFA or WTFV, you'd know that it's detecting the input elements using an algorithm and not hard coded to the specific application (they even demoed VNCing into an OS X machine and having it detect the UI elements there and applying the processing).
  
  --
  Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
3. Re:Screen Scraper by mwvdlee · 2010-04-06 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's like AutoIT (or any of the others like it) but with far less functionality.
  It's also kinda like what you'd supposed to be able to do with COM, VBA, Rexx or any of the other similar mechanisms from past decades, but easily breakable.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
4. Re:Screen Scraper by natehoy · 2010-04-06 00:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And if you've worked with screen scrapers, you'd know that most of them are based on UI elements, and an upgrade to the underlying software almost always causes problems because the UI elements frequently change when software is upgraded.
  So, yes, this is a screen scraper, which means it will survive some small alterations to the UI, but you're usually looking at upgrading/rewriting the screen specs when the underlying screens change.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
5. Re:Screen Scraper by Joe+Random · 2010-04-06 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  And if you've worked with screen scrapers, you'd know that most of them are based on UI elements, and an upgrade to the underlying software almost always causes problems because the UI elements frequently change when software is upgraded.
  Screen scrapers fail when the UI is updated because they need to be able to find and scrape specific bits of data. They need to know which widgets map to which values. By contrast, this software only cares about locating standard widgets on the screen. End of story. It doesn't care what values are represented by those widgets, because that's not relevant to its functionality. So it should work just fine for any application that uses a known set of widgets, since all it needs to do is be able to say, "Ah, that looks like a checkbox!" and "Oh, that's clearly a text input box". Changing widget graphics would likely break it in a similar way that rearranging them would break a screen scraper, but just moving them around would have zero impact (unless you start overlapping them or something else funky like that, I guess).
6. Re:Screen Scraper by natehoy · 2010-04-06 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  So when I add a checkbox that says "Amortize this loan?" above the checkbox that used to be there that said "Automatically calculate payments for this loan?" then change the verbiage on the automatic calculation, this application is going to go kaboom.
  I'm not criticizing screen scrapers. I've used them. But upgrading the underlying software always changes screen elements and requires a rewrite/update to the scraper code.
  So, in answer to the original question:
  
  This is called a screen scraper, and likes to break with updates to the underlying program, right?
  The answer is an unequivocal YES. There are very few changes you can make to the underlying application that will not break a screen scraper. They are incredibly useful tools, but they have their limits.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
7. Re:Screen Scraper by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  So it's using the on screen bitmap to reconstruct the widgets that can be obtained far more efficiently from the operating system / window manager. So it's just a screen scraper, and a unnecessarily slow and inefficient one at that. The only reason it may not break between updates is that its functionality isn't specific enough to care about where the widgets are.
  Furthermore, it doesn't live up to its promise that it makes proprietary software act like open source. It's still impossible to change the underlying algorithms. And it's still impossible to redistribute the modified system, which shouldn't come as a surprise, since that would be illegal, irrespective of the particular implementation.
  So, this is a) old, b) not particularly exciting and c) over hyped. Why is this on /.? Ah, yes, I must be new here.
8. Re:Screen Scraper by Joe+Random · 2010-04-06 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  So when I add a checkbox that says "Amortize this loan?" above the checkbox that used to be there that said "Automatically calculate payments for this loan?" then change the verbiage on the automatic calculation, this application is going to go kaboom.
  I think we're talking about two different things, here. The application that was demonstrated in the linked article is not a screen scraper in the traditional sense. It doesn't read any values from the widgets. It doesn't care what the widgets represent. All it does it recognize that the widgets exist, and causes the cursor to either slow down over, or snap to, widgets.
  
  So moving widgets around doesn't faze it, because it was never differentiating between them to begin with. All it cares about is locating the widgets in the window so it can manipulate the mouse cursor relative to them. So your example of adding checkboxes is moot, because the app never knew or cared what any of the checkboxes represented in the first place. All it cares about is, "Hey! The mouse cursor looks like it's moving over a checkbox of some sort! Better slow it down!"
9. Re:Screen Scraper by jvkjvk · 2010-04-06 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  You appear to miss the full potential of this work.
  This isn't just about recognising GUI elements just to slow down but also to present a partiall or wholly alternate interface to the user to interact with.
  Whatever markup they are using after element detection would have to map the original gui element to some new gui element(s) possibly elsewhere on the new interface, possibly with new text/mouse over behaviour/etc.
  So, a simple app with two buttons, "Quit" and "Do Something" may have a Gui wrapper that makes these look like a list box with two entries, for (a horrible) example. However, the wrapper still has to know which list entry goes to what button.
  Come out with a new version of the base app that has different text and/or button order causes the person who created the wrapper to re-identify what is what to hook the behaviour up correctly.
  Regards.
Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by noidentity · 2010-04-06 00:27 · Score: 1

Now they just need to make a tool for web articles like this that customizes the UI to just show the article, without all that crap around it.
1. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by clone53421 · 2010-04-06 00:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes, it’s called GreaseMonkey.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
2. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it's called adblock.
3. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by DrVxD · 2010-04-06 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's called Lynx
  
  --
  Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
4. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by natehoy · 2010-04-06 00:46 · Score: 3, 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.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
5. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  Now they just need to make a tool for web articles like this that customizes the UI to just show the article, without all that crap around it.
  Now they just need to make a tool for web articles like this that customizes the UI to just show the article, without all whining it.
  
  T, FTFY
6. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by gandhi_2 · 2010-04-06 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's called jQuerify.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
7. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by icebraining · 2010-04-06 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the Greasefire tip, I didn't knew it.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
8. Re:Anybody got the equivalent for web pages? by Graham+J+-+XVI · 2010-04-10 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  +1 on the greasefire tip, thanks!
  I'd add Flashblock to your list too, it really speeds up a lot of sites and eliminates Flash ads, even ones AdBlock misses.
Redefinition by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 00:27 · Score: 0

"Behave like open source": Freely customizable. "Open source" (FOSS) is sufficient for customizability, but not necessary.
If the original program's operation is not modified, then there is probably a second process which does the extra stuff. Perhaps the modification of the UI is innovative, but the act of using a second program to do stuff for another is not (at least not to anyone with 10 minutes of programming experience, even for a non-CS (math) like me).
"Manipulating software at the pixel level" by Yvanhoe · 2010-04-06 00:29 · Score: 2, Funny

This quote really made my day...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
1. Re:"Manipulating software at the pixel level" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Finally, we can now create a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track an IP address!
2. Re:"Manipulating software at the pixel level" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  So that's how they tighten up those graphics!
Stopgap at best. by headkase · 2010-04-06 00:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Open Source as a development methodology has already won. It is more scalable: more features, custom features, localization, error removing all work better with it. It is also a lateral organization like a web which avoids some issues that the "Mythical Man Month" talks about which results from hierarchal organization. Close software will never go away but it's utility has already been greatly compromised by Open software. With Open software this extra translation layer is unnecessary you would just modify the source and have a more reliable program intrinsically. Code is Free, get over it.

--
Shh.
1. Re:Stopgap at best. by somersault · 2010-04-06 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Open source may technically be a better development model for those reasons, but you need to have interested developers to work on your projects, and the only way to get people interested in some projects is simply to pay them. It won't matter how open or closed the source is if nobody is interested in helping out. So closed source is just as good if not better than open source for that type of scenario, because it will get the hours of work it needs put in there. Even if a closed source equivalent does become available, it will probably be months or years later if only one guy is interested in the project rather than a team of contracted developers (yes I'm aware that more coders is not always a Good Thing for getting a project finished quickly, or at all).
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
2. Re:Stopgap at best. by tepples · 2010-04-06 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Open Source as a development methodology has already won.
  Not in all categories of computer programs. Can you show me evidence that open source has won for, say, video games?
3. Re:Stopgap at best. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  I think the idea is that it would be the best development methodology if it had no competition.
Seriously? by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-04-06 00:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

That has to add a lot of overhead to the already running process and to what benefit? If it's reading the code "as many as 20 times per second" that is going to add tons of CPU and RAM usage to the system that just isn't needed. F/OSS ftw!

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
1. Re:Seriously? by Chris_Stankowitz · 2010-04-06 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  hat has to add a lot of overhead to the already running process and to what benefit? If it's reading the code "as many as 20 times per second" that is going to add tons of CPU and RAM usage to the system that just isn't needed. F/OSS ftw!
  With i7 chips, SSD HDs, 64bit OSes that support 4+ gig of triple chan memory (any or all of those in one machine are huge improvements in desktop computing power) you'll still not push it to capacity with 20 such apps running. We are at a point where we have an abundance of CPU/memory to spare, I see nothing wrong with developing such apps (if only as stop gaps) until such time that a suitable replacement arrives. These apps very well may be the impetus for the development of those open apps once it proved that a user/market base wants it.
  CS-
2. Re:Seriously? by nmg196 · 2010-04-06 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  > If it's reading the code "as many as 20 times per second" that is going to add tons of CPU and RAM usage
  Why? 20 times per second is nothing. Our PCs can do billions of operations per second. I doubt a few basic UI tweaks will make even a 1% difference to CPU loading unless it's very badly written. The way it works isn't even that different to how skinnable applications work natively. Sure there's an extra step - but those steps will only a take a couple of milliseconds out of every second.
3. Re:Seriously? by ErikZ · 2010-04-06 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  I waste a ton of time at work manually interacting with a closed source ActiveX program. I've been looking for a way to automate refreshing the data screen and parsing the info.
  Having a 500$ computer do this is FAR FAR cheaper than hiring a person to do this.
  Yes, using F/OSS would have been the second best alternative. The best alternative was the original software tool that was developed in-house, which was tossed out.
  
  --
  Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
4. Re:Seriously? by Pharmboy · 2010-04-06 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  There is an exponential difference between "20 times per second" and "20 instructions per second". I don't know how much headroom this would generate, but I know it would likely be a few million times more than "20 instructions per second".
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
5. Re:Seriously? by edbob · 2010-04-06 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This sounds like the same sort of attitude that software writers have had for ages. Just write bloated, inefficient code and let processing power eventually catch up to run the software. I think that this needs to be a legitimate concern or we will wind up back to the point where a new version of Windows would come out and barely be able to run on the technology available. Yes, this may not add much to a computer running a Core i7 with 6 gigs of memory, but that sort of system is pretty rare in the real world. Most people use computers that are a few years old.
6. Re:Seriously? by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-04-06 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  ):
  
  --
  "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
7. Re:Seriously? by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-04-06 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  my own is about 8 years old (though still pretty beefy IMO, PIV 2.4GHz, 1.5GB ram, does the job)
  
  --
  "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
8. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  It'd actually be faster, on the account a high end graphics card could be used to assist...
9. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you. I'm tired of my friends making fun of me for not having 4GB of RAM.
10. Re:Seriously? by Green+Salad · 2010-04-06 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm running P4@2.8Ghz, 0.5GB RAM for most of my work. (e.g., spreadsheets, memos, email, writing documentation)
11. Re:Seriously? by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-04-06 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  My mom is running ~.5GB RAM on her XP system and it's not nearly enough. What I have is barely enough. To have another app laying up in ram running through each instruction of any program I opened at 20 times/second...no. That's not happening on either system.
  
  --
  "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
12. Re:Seriously? by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-04-06 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  How many cubicle farms are going to put high end graphics cards on their workstations? If I were a responsible IT Manager, I would only allow the minimum needed to run the OS (office apps and most specialty software should not need more than that). From a cost perspective, that would be responsible. Running a high end graphics card just to assist in running this monstrosity would be irresponsible at best.
  
  --
  "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
13. Re:Seriously? by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-04-06 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Don't thank me. I'm in the process of saving up for a $2k+ DIY box with 16GB of RAM. :p
  
  --
  "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
14. Re:Seriously? by Terrasque · 2010-04-06 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  You might have a look at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/uid/sikuli/ - I've had some luck with it on similar tasks
  
  --
  It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
15. Re:Seriously? by martin-boundary · 2010-04-06 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  CPU is cheap, but reverse engineering pixel clusters to identify buttons, text boxes, toolbars etc is expensive in programmer time, and each time the underlying UI/theme changes, it needs to be redone. The same is true if you run a variety of apps with their own custom UI elements/themes, which is pretty common on Windows (even single vendors like Microsoft aren't consistent in UI toolkits, eg Office apps don't share the same widgets as Notepad).
  It's unlikely (IMHO) that this system will be widely used, as it won't work straightaway on random apps, and has a small chance of breaking each time you run a software update on your existing apps (which, over time, means the chance of breaking becomes high).
16. Re:Seriously? by ErikZ · 2010-04-06 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  This looks very promising. Thank you so much for posting the link.
  
  --
  Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
ResEdit on System 7? by mystik · 2010-04-06 00:36 · Score: 1

I remember doing hacks like this to Mac applications -- back when they had resource + data forks. The resource forks contained all their sounds, graphics, icons, forms, etc. With ResEdit you could simply open up (most) applications and tweak them to your hearts content :)

--
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
1. Re:ResEdit on System 7? by walshy007 · 2010-04-06 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Mac applications -- back when they had resource + data forks
  They still do.
2. Re:ResEdit on System 7? by somersault · 2010-04-06 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  From the summary I thought this sounded more analogous to writing a GUI front end for a command line program rather than simply changing the graphics.. you add another layer on top that takes a high level command then performs the intended action in the application, but with less needless tedium.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
3. Re:ResEdit on System 7? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  Most OS X programs (but not all) are actually directories with the .app extension.
  Want to change the "burn done" sound in burner.app? ctrl-click or right-click, select "Show package contents", navigate to what you want to edit, and edit. It's even easier in the console, if you're so inclined, since the console doesn't know it's supposed to pretend to think the directory is a file.
  (And when you're done and want to test from the console, 'open burner.app' works great!)
4. Re:ResEdit on System 7? by omnichad · 2010-04-06 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Applications don't really use them anymore, except to store icons. OS X applications are folders named with a .app extension, which the OS abstracts to a single icon. The reality is that the executable is just one file inside this folder somewhere. None of those files are in the resource fork anymore.
5. Re:ResEdit on System 7? by forkazoo · 2010-04-06 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I remember doing hacks like this to Mac applications -- back when they had resource + data forks. The resource forks contained all their sounds, graphics, icons, forms, etc. With ResEdit you could simply open up (most) applications and tweak them to your hearts content :)
  These days, if you want to customize an OS X app, you just open up the .app folder, and play with the .nib files. It's actually kind of fun to open up the .nib's in Interface Builder and change around all the buttons for iTunes or whatever. It als doesn't require super fancy research...
6. Re:ResEdit on System 7? by coxymla · 2010-04-06 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  These days .nib files are compiled and most applications are generally signed. You can't do this kind of stuff anymore without breaking something, although usually in a minor way (updates, keychain.)
Headline once again by oldhack · 2010-04-06 00:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

The headline seems completely disconnected from text of the summary

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
1. Re:Headline once again by IBBoard · 2010-04-06 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  You can add "features" in terms of "laying things out slightly differently, or providing highlights and other feedback, all of which still interfaces with an identical feature set of the app underneath".
  Or "it is acting like it is open in the same way as straping stabilisers to a motorbike makes it like a sports car".
Copyright infringement by hweimer · 2010-04-06 00:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Chances are that such "enhancements" constitute a derivative work of the proprietary user interface. In many jurisdiction even using such a thing is illegal and distributing the enhancements without permission from the copyright owner most certainly is. Which, of course, is very different from free and open source software, where people are encouraged to share and improve the code.

--
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
1. Re:Copyright infringement by blueg3 · 2010-04-06 00:48 · Score: 2, 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.
2. Re:Copyright infringement by time961 · 2010-04-06 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is sorta like ClearPlay--software that automatically excises the "naughty bits" from commercial DVDs (e.g., turning R-rated flicks into G). There was a lawsuit, of course, but they seem to still be in business, so they must have won in some sense. As I recall the argument was that the software was NOT a derivative work because it was distributed completely separately and contained none of the original work. It only knows about the time (location) of the naughty bits so it could skip past them, and was thus no different, except for being automated, from a printed list that would tell the viewer when to hit fast forward.
  
  On the other hand, it seems that some services and software which involved copying the DVD but leaving the naughty bits out didn't succeed--even though the customers could prove that they owned the original DVDs.
  
  This technology seems like it could be considered a wrapper in the same sense as ClearPlay--it doesn't have to contain ANY of the original software, just observations about it.
3. Re:Copyright infringement by mcgrew · 2010-04-06 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Chances are that such "enhancements" constitute a derivative work of the proprietary user interface.
  No, it isn't. If I buy ten copies of LOTR and write in the margins and resell those books, I have not created a "derivative work". If I reprint those ten books with the extra notes, even if I include the original copies, then I have created a derivative work and have infringed copyright.
  No way is changing the output of a program a "derivative work"; it's writing in the margins, and not even reselling the books. You would have whoever sold me the pencil be called a pirate?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
4. Re:Copyright infringement by julesh · 2010-04-06 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Depends. If the enhancement has significant chunks of the original app's UI included within it (e.g. for purposes of recognising specific dialogs, etc.), it could be considered derivative. This is the same theory as states that an app compiled against a library, even if it's dynamically linked to it, is also a derivative of that library, because it's designed specifically to fit around it.
5. Re:Copyright infringement by Abcd1234 · 2010-04-06 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  In many jurisdiction even using such a thing is illegal
  Wrong, sorry.
  and distributing the enhancements without permission from the copyright owner most certainly is.
  Now ya got it!
  Just to be clear: Restrictions around derivative works involve *distributing* those works. But if an individual uses a tool like this to create a "derivative work" for his own personal use, that doesn't run afoul of the law. So, no, simply *using* this tool is not illegal. But if you were to take the application, wrap it in a tool that does what this thing does, and redistribute that combined work, then you would absolutely be breaking the law (not the least of which for distributing the original work without a license).
  Similarly, it's perfectly legal for me to recut "The Matrix Revolutions" so it doesn't completely suck balls and then watch that work in my home. It's simply not legal for me to distribute/perform/etc that work.
What's actually new here? by time961 · 2010-04-06 00:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Tools like this have been around for ages, although they are usually called "GUI test frameworks" or "automation assistants". Such tools provide a way of scripting interactions with an existing GUI. However, they really only focus on mimicking pre-recorded user interactions--it seems like it would be quite time-consuming and fragile to reverse-engineer an arbitrary program's dialogue boxes in a robust way that would allow control to be significantly enhanced.

Also, on Windows, at least, there are tools that enhance the operation of dialogue boxes (for example, adding history and options to the File Open dialog). Those tools work at a more abstract level than snagging pixels, which is a lot more efficient--but that means they are ineffective on applications that have already customized those dialogues.

It seems like the fundamental non-breakthrough here is that the application actually must already include the functionality that you want to express in your modified UI--otherwise, you can modify the UI all you want, but the app will only do what it's capable of. So if you want it to display a bunch of different renderings in sub-windows automatically (to use their example), it had better be capable of that display already.
1. Re:What's actually new here? by Abcd1234 · 2010-04-06 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Tools like this have been around for ages, although they are usually called "GUI test frameworks" or "automation assistants".
  Tools have been around for ages that present a new GUI while hiding the old one and proxying events from the new interface back to the old one, so that you can retool the UI without modifying the application?
  Link, please.
Look, not act by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 00:57 · Score: 0

It seems to me the title should be "Making Closed Software Look like it's Open". But what do I know. Maybe the looks is all that's important in software nowadays.
Get off of my lawn and all that.
wallhack, aimhack, maphax by Khashishi · 2010-04-06 01:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

this is nothing new
one question... by flahwho · 2010-04-06 01:06 · Score: 1

WHY!!??
And next week... by lxs · 2010-04-06 01:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

We show prisoners how to paint the bars on their windows the color of the sky and pretend that they are free.
Game Genie by Chameleon+Man · 2010-04-06 01:10 · Score: 1

Isn't this similar to how the old Game Genie and Gameshark systems used to work on console games, or am I way off mark here?
What this about you libelling others here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:13 · Score: 0

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1607692&cid=31743626
Reverse Engineering by dandart · 2010-04-06 01:16 · Score: 1

Some closed source software explicitly prohibit modificatiion (unknown whether it counts in memory) and reverse-engineering. This is probably illegal.
1. Re:Reverse Engineering by John+Hasler · 2010-04-06 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  > Some closed source software explicitly prohibit modificatiion (unknown
  > whether it counts in memory) and reverse-engineering.
  Yes, EULAs often contain unenforceable bullshit.
  > This is probably illegal.
  It may be breach of contract for some users of a few programs to use it. It is not copyright infringement nor is it any sort of a crime in the USA.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Screen scraping... by flyingfsck · 2010-04-06 01:17 · Score: 1

Screen scraping is a very common activity. Everybody needs to use the Print Screen function eventually and it is a simple step to edit the result in the Gimp.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
thats like claiming McDonalds is a 5* restaurant by kubitus · 2010-04-06 01:18 · Score: 1

I wish them a lot of of fun - to make user input result into an improved software!
Scammers have done this years ago. by SharpFang · 2010-04-06 01:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Exploits that do this are in the wild.
They hijack your client display when you access a banking page, fill in the account details and amount for you, while presenting you with interface to enter your target account, then replace the data on the confirmation page with whatever you entered while obscuring the data they entered. You sign the transaction with a token or OTP and instead of sending $15 to your aunt, $10k money gets transferred to the hijacker's account in Nigeria.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Nice by Nick_taken · 2010-04-06 01:22 · Score: 1

How it was used to be made 13 years ago. http://www.nikse.dk/razzcripp.html
Nothing new about this.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:29 · Score: 0

Method of "hooking" draw-calls and substituting those with your own methods has been around for as long as there have been "windowed" user interfaces.
What was the point of this article? Someone just found several decades old stuff and just assumed being the first?
Unce upon a time... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 01:41 · Score: 0

Once upon a time, back in the dreaded days of America OnLine... we did something very similar to this. We would use a windows api hook along with a few other api tools to add menus to AOL's interface. This menu would basically link to our "proggies" (i.e. our collection of mass mailers, "punters", scrollers, faders, chat bots, TOSers, etc.) There's a lot you could do with the windows api.
All of this was between 10 and 15 years ago by a bunch of bored, VB programming teenagers. Those were the days.
Very common already by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 02:04 · Score: 0

I believe this kind of sourceless modifications for accessibility are very common indeed. Just download nocd/nodvd-crack to any game and you'll have the game a whole lot more accessible and playable. Though recent trends have been mostly to make games less accessible (with more DRM) and some games have evolved to a point where no amount of work can make them playable (ref. latest Ubisoft DRM).
Sounds like a new twist on by mswhippingboy · 2010-04-06 02:11 · Score: 1

the age old technique of screen-scraping, only probably a lot more error prone (if that's possible).

--
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
1. Re:Sounds like a new twist on by ezbo · 2010-04-06 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Hear hear.
Re:What's this about you libelling others here? by StuartHankins · 2010-04-06 02:12 · Score: 1

Grow some, kid. Posting as AC just makes you look even dumber.
YAWN, Nothing New... by ckaminski · 2010-04-06 02:24 · Score: 1

I did this years ago back in 1998 when I had an issue getting my MAPI service provider working to provide an interface to my companies calendaring tool. I hijacked the Outlook calendar to create items in my software, while supporting regular Outlook email. Good stuff.
SAGE = FAIL by ezbo · 2010-04-06 02:54 · Score: 1

I do this all day every day.... Don't know if I'm allowed to name names but BLOODY SAGE!!!! Sold by people who know very little about it, to people who know even less. And then some poor sod has to warp this rigid, unhelpful software into something useable, which would be easy since there are a hundred and fifty million add-ons, if that person was given a budget. I found it easier to trick people into thinking they were on Excel than teaching them how to use SAGE.
Other languages... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-06 03:07 · Score: 0

. . . Like AutoIT and AutoHotKey have been able to both hook, and modify (add / replace elements) in other applications for years.
Patentable idea! by kpainter · 2010-04-06 03:42 · Score: 1

Lip stick on a pig
Rube Goldberg by jvillain · 2010-04-06 04:41 · Score: 1

Paging Rube Goldberg. Please call the front desk Mr. Goldberg. Or maybe they are trying to win the code obfuscation award. Wouldn't there effort be better spent creating some thing that isn't broken by design?
curses, foiled again... by Thud457 · 2010-04-06 04:53 · Score: 1

Wait -- are you saying that any malware I write to steal people's paypal accounts with this architecture may not be portable?

Why's that "Submit" button look funny?...

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There was a windows program that kind of did that by Dwedit · 2010-04-06 05:31 · Score: 1

There was a shareware Windows program called "The Customizer" which recognized a parent window, then would move, resize, hide/show, enable/disable all the child windows (buttons, controls, etc) the way you want it every time that window appears. So you could completely rearrange a dialog box of a program, turn on some hidden controls, enable stuff that's supposed to be disabled, etc.
Then there's also resource file editing, you can change dialogs, or add shortcut keys to menu items or other dialog buttons. I've done that a few times to add shortcut keys to a program.
Squeak/Smalltalk? by janwedekind · 2010-04-06 07:03 · Score: 1

I'm just trying to imagine how ridiculous this must look to a Squeak/Smalltalk developer ;)
Undetectable game 'bots by Animats · 2010-04-06 07:04 · Score: 1

This will be popular for game bots. No more patching the code.
I'm waiting for a game 'bot which uses a camera to look at the screen. That would work on consoles, even ones that used HDCP displays. The future of gold farming is a dimly lit room with hundreds of shelves of game consoles, and cameras pointed at small screens, tied to a farm of 1U servers playing the games.
A way around HDMI and Secured Content? by Sean0michael · 2010-04-06 11:00 · Score: 1

Is this article essentially describing a way to re-open the analog hole that HDMI is looking to close? I mean, if you could show your Blu-Ray movie over HDMI, then capture the pixels and save them to your hard drive, haven't you just opened a new hole for people to record content?

--
Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
Could be useful for testing. by mr_java66 · 2010-04-07 02:19 · Score: 0

The first thing I would do with this kind of technology is write a test script for my own software. It would be great if the testers could have an automated interface to my stuff.
Re:What's this about you libelling others here? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-08 02:35 · Score: 0

Actually, he’s not a kid. He’s 45 years old. (Sad, isn’t it?)
And his shitty software looks just as hideous as his writing does.