timschmidt at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 15:46:22 CDT 2006
On 10/3/06, Robert Lunnon <bobl at optushome.com.au> wrote:
> Part 3 Applies, however it could be read as being permissible for the purpose
> of implementing a compatible interface. IE for the purpose of making the copy
> protection work under Wine. I think it would be much safer to make the
> protection work from a circumvention point of view.
More defensible? Certainly.
Advisable? Of course.
Strictly necessary as per the letter of the law? I suppose it's up to
interpretation (what law isn't?), but the way I read it, Wine is
completely protected - being that 'enabling interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs' is it's
sole purpose for existing.
So, in summary, I pretty much agree entirely.
More information about the wine-devel