Re: things I miss in wine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



vitamin schrieb:
[...]
Jochen wrote:
Creating (or trying to) create a 1:1 implementation of the
software / driver / kernel layer used by starforce to detect a
real cd and having some fake positives and some fake negatives
due to errors *might* be seen as legal if it complies with the
starforce license and the one of the product using it.

have you an example of a product with a license forbidding this?

You don't need any license examples here - just pick any copyright.
Creating something that matches 1 to 1 to the original called
copying. And that you can't do on any copyrighted material.

If I create something that matches the original 1 to 1 it is still not necessarily a copy. Only when I use the original to create this new "thing" it is a copy. And when I am doing a copy in terms of reimplementing something that is already out there by not using the source code, it usually ends up in not being the same. So if I did not use the original and did not modify the original, then copyright isn't the problem. At least I never heard of such a copyright anywhere on this world. Of course that does not mean it is allowed. You could still have patent problems or problems with the naming. But these two are not copyright. I mean this whole project here would be against copyright if you see it like this.

Besides you missed the part about DMCA which expressly prohibits
*any* circumvention of security measures except for research work.

That's maybe because I am not from the US and DMCA is not known in this form here. Here it must be a "effective" security measure... DVD protection is for example not seen as effective here. And I somehow doubt that a protection system, that does not work is seen as effective. But don't let us discuss this... let us talk about: what exactly is the security measure?

I don't propose writing a general crack. For me it would be good enough already if stupid copy protection systems like starforce could simply do their work. Systems like these usually have two components if I am not wrong. One part that is in the system, and one part that uses the system part from inside the game. So, now why is it "circumvention of security measures" if I replace a non working system part with a working one?

Someone said Starfroce won't work on vista too... well http://www.star-force.com/support/users/group3.php I think many games will work. But think about it... you are replacing a security system here that is not from the same vendor as you got your game from. I mean for DVD for example... I was allowed to write my own player and to play protected DVDs I have to have a valid and legal key. There could have been even a player for linux like systems, if there would have been a license for a key. So why exactly is it not allowed to "fix" the starforce driver for wine? I mean if it where as easy as rewriting the starforce driver in the windows system, then we would already have a general patch for all starforce protected games. The important part then must be in the game itself and the driver on the system just gives access to whatever the game asks for.

that still does not mean that any image of the game would suddenly work


bye Jochen



[Index of Archives]     [Gimp for Windows]     [Red Hat]     [Samba]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Graphics Cards]     [Wine Home]

  Powered by Linux