-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Le Lundi 10 Novembre 2003 08:11, Marcus Meissner a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 07:46:58PM +0100, Lionel Ulmer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:32:02AM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
Lionel, could QEMU be used here? I guess the driver
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Raphaël Junqueira
Sent: 10 November 2003 08:05
To: Lionel Ulmer; Marcus Meissner
Cc: Alexandre Julliard; Wine Devel
Subject: Re: copy protection - was: Re: Is it time for playing games on
WINE?
Well
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le Lundi 10 Novembre 2003 16:18, Robert Shearman a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Raphaël Junqueira
Sent: 10 November 2003 08:05
To: Lionel Ulmer; Marcus Meissner
Cc:
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:19:45 +0100, Raphal Junqueira wrote:
...
BTW, I have got as far with loading secdrv.sys as crashing on unimplemented
IoCreateDevice. I believe the Io* functions will be the biggest problems.
It is no problem loading it and initializing it by Captive NTFS for
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 20:00, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I don't get it. As far as I understand, so long as the code in the Wine
archives does not allow running copied discs, we are not violating the
DMCA. If someone else takes Wine code and modifies it, that's where the
DMCA violation happens.
I
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:59, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
The DMCA does not require copyright violation, what is illegal is
circumventing the protection measure, it doesn't really matter if
the replacement code has the same functionality or not.
Decryption is a different matter - that's banned
At 18.17 09/11/2003, Steven Edwards wrote:
The problem is how emulate windows kernel internal behavior (ie assembly
tips as NtCurrentTeb)
We have been looking in to loading this driver under ReactOS and all of
the functions are implemented but it still returns STATUS_UNSUCESSFULL. I
think that
At 02.11 11/11/2003, Steven Edwards wrote:
Further run fails for Captive as 'secdrv.sys' is somehow broken driver as
it does not provide any way to mount a filesystem. :-?
secdrv isn't a filesystem, nor a volume driver. Filesystems and volume
drivers, in Windows NT, are special, and secdrv is
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 23:54, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
The usual technique: run the app, see what breaks, implement the
missing feature/fix the bug, retry. The first thing of course is to
investigate how to support loading the needed driver.
Lionel, could QEMU be used here? I guess the driver
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
On November 5, 2003 01:00 am, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Basicly as long as our code:
A.cant run copied safedisk disks (perfect copies and no-cd cracks
aside) and B.cant be modified to run copied safedisk disks (e.g. by
disabling some parts of the WINE code that performed
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't get it. As far as I understand, so long as the code in the
Wine archives does not allow running copied discs, we are not
violating the DMCA. If someone else takes Wine code and modifies it,
that's where the DMCA violation happens.
The DMCA
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't get it. As far as I understand, so long as the code in the
Wine archives does not allow running copied discs, we are not
violating the DMCA. If someone else takes Wine code and modifies it,
that's where the DMCA
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the code in Wine still doesn't allow unprotected CDs from running,
there can be no problem.
No, it's not that simple. By providing a replacement driver, you are
circumventing a technical measure controlling access to the work. The
fact is that
Hi there,
On November 6, 2003 02:18 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
So the question is whether the code in question is circumventing the
protection or not.
If the code in Wine still doesn't allow unprotected CDs from running,
there can be no problem.
I think you would
On Thursday 06 November 2003 03:31 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
War crime tribunals, environmental protection treaties, privacy
legislation, ... the ability to let chilling effects meet little or no
significant organised obstacle has become the trademark of a certain
breed of freedom-loving people.
Ann and Jason Edmeades [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Ever had the feeling you regret asking a question...]
Possibly another question for Alexander then - Realistically do you believe
that we can ever support copy protection, and if so how?
I definitely think we can support it yes. It's just a
I don't get it. As far as I understand, so long as the code in the Wine
archives does not allow running copied discs, we are not violating the
DMCA. If someone else takes Wine code and modifies it, that's where the
DMCA violation happens.
Right, I think a lot of people would be happy to host
None whatsoever, the driver reimplementation is clearly a DMCA
violation. The proper way to do that is to somehow load the driver and
let it perform all the checks it wants to perform; a dummy driver that
returns magic values to bypass the checks is not acceptable.
From what I know about copy
El mié, 05 de nov de 2003, a las 00:50, Raphaël Junqueira escribio:
Alexandre, is there any chance of this code *ever* being excepted into
the wine tree?
None whatsoever, the driver reimplementation is clearly a DMCA
violation. The proper way to do that is to somehow load the driver
On Wednesday 05 November 2003 6:00 am, you wrote:
None whatsoever, the driver reimplementation is clearly a DMCA
violation. The proper way to do that is to somehow load the driver and
let it perform all the checks it wants to perform; a dummy driver that
returns magic values to bypass
On November 5, 2003 01:00 am, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Basicly as long as our code:
A.cant run copied safedisk disks (perfect copies and no-cd cracks
aside) and B.cant be modified to run copied safedisk disks (e.g. by
disabling some parts of the WINE code that performed checks)
then I think
Zsolt Rizsanyi wrote:
So this is what I think that the status of copy protection is. If I'm wrong
somewhere then please correct me.
Hi,
Yea I think your correct.. here is his post...
http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2002/04/0194.html
And our last exchange: Zsolt
but this brings fort the legal issues.
If the re-implemented driver only allows the user to play the game, and not to
make a perfect copy of the CD, there is no legal issue.
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 15:13, Ivan Leo Murray-Smith wrote:
but this brings fort the legal issues.
If the re-implemented driver only allows the user to play the game, and not to
make a perfect copy of the CD, there is no legal issue.
I don't think there's any legal issue anyway. There are no
El mar, 04 de nov de 2003, a las 16:13, Ivan Leo Murray-Smith escribio:
but this brings fort the legal issues.
If the re-implemented driver only allows the user to play the game, and not to
make a perfect copy of the CD, there is no legal issue.
I think that the actual status is even worse,
It might be possible to reverse engineer the current safedisc 1 and 2
protections and include the code in wine. The problem is that the new version (a
snapshot of it was used at the time in flashpoint) is less nice. Nowadays when
you for example use a crack the game works or doesn't work. The new
Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre, is there any chance of this code *ever* being excepted into
the wine tree?
None whatsoever, the driver reimplementation is clearly a DMCA
violation. The proper way to do that is to somehow load the driver and
let it perform all the checks it wants to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le Tuesday 04 November 2003 23:07, Alexandre Julliard a écrit :
Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre, is there any chance of this code *ever* being excepted into
the wine tree?
None whatsoever, the driver reimplementation is clearly a
--- Roderick Colenbrander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps the solution is to write a wrapper to load secdrv.sys and
friends.
Perhaps in a way like that ntfs emulation project works (it uses a
reactos
kernel) or perhaps using an emulator like qemu.
Yes it should be possibe to adapt the work
When you play
using an incorrect crack the game will slowly become unplayable.
Like this we can be sure that the reimplemented driver is perfect or a bit
buggy. Also, some people may prefer the idea of a open source safe disc driver
more that the idea of loading the proprietary one.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 02:29, Mike Hearn wrote:
I don't think there's any legal issue anyway. There are no laws against
cracking copy protection unless you're in the states and it's got
encryption.
You want to be careful here. There's also laws in Australia against bypassing
a technological
31 matches
Mail list logo
