On 10/3/06, Robert Lunnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
IANAL 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. --tim
