Question about WineX licences
Dimitrie O. Paun
dpaun at rogers.com
Tue Sep 30 13:14:01 CDT 2003
On September 30, 2003 11:51 am, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> And it's "impossible" because the patch we're talking about does not
> actually implement copy protection. It only makes Wine implement certain
> Windows quirks. For Wine not to implement these quirks in certain APIs
> may be considered bugs, and how do you abstract away bugfixes?
Well, these should just be contributed back... :) That would be in the
spirit of cooperation we're trying to promote.
> Anyway, if you're really insistent, perhaps you can get Gav to let you
> sign a NDA and see the code for yourself, then come up with a way to
> abstract it, but you'd have to talk to him about it.
I'd be interesting, but I don't think I want to sign any NDA. You guys
know the problem a lot better than I do, it seems to be there's simply
lack of political will. I mean, some of the stuff you guys doing may
be hard to abstract, but I doubt that we can't "free" most of the DLLs
of such copy protection hacks. In other words, you're saying this stuff
touches a lot of DLLs ATM, so those can't be shared with Wine. Maybe
the 20/80 rule applies here as well, in the sense that with 20% of the
work, 80% of these DLLs can be freed.
More information about the wine-devel