gmturner007 at ameritech.net
Mon Nov 4 01:34:10 CST 2002
On Sunday 03 November 2002 10:50 pm, Gavriel State wrote:
> Mark Hannessen wrote:
> >>When the patch was published, there was a discussion, and the
> >> conclusion was that the code is very probably legal, and is not
> >> against DMCA
> >>Are you sure about the above statements? Have you checked that, or
> >> it is just your opinion?
> > Carlos words regarding copy protection:
> >>You aren't giving hints to decrypt some code, simply implementing
> >> the win32 API, and sometimes implementing a PC architecture, it is
> >> far away of decrypt code ;).
> Laurent's copy protection patch, while impressive, does have a pretty
> serious copyright-related issue, which has nothing to do with the
> DMCA. The problem is that his SafeDisc driver is - at least in parts
> - a direct translation of a dissassembly. Such translation means
> that technically it's a derivative work, and thus would require the
> agreement of the original copyright owner to redistribute.
hmm.... that's too bad. couldn't this problem be eliminated by creating
a safedisc "spec" from this patch, and doing a dirty-room/clean-room
number on it, by implementing that "spec" from scratch? Dunno if it's
worth the effort... are a lot of people really in need of safedisc
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"
--President Bill Clinton, MTV interview, 1993
More information about the wine-devel