Hi,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:05:55 +0100, KJK::Hyperion wrote:
> 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.
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 nei
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 t
Hello Jan!
--- Jan Kratochvil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:19:45 +0100, Raphaël 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
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:19:45 +0100, Raphaël 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 GN
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
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
Lionel Ulmer; Marcus Meissner
> > Cc: Alexandre Julliard; Wine Devel
> > Subject: Re: copy protection - was: Re: Is it time for playing games on
> > WINE?
> >
> > Well it's not really easy as the NT_HEADER only declare:
> > Characteristics: 0306
&g
> -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 pl
-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 drive
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 expects to have
> > kernel level access to the machine, so we could either:
>
> Well, as I have no idea how .SYS loadi
Hello,
--- Raphaël_Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it is simple, only a PE module who work on kernel mode using os APIs:
>
> - -=(FeniX as [EMAIL PROTECTED])-(on tty2)-(at 13:39:31)=-
> -={$:'~'}=->winedump dump -j import
> /mnt/win_c2/windows/system32/drivers/
> secdrv.sys
> Contents of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le Friday 07 November 2003 19:46, Lionel Ulmer a écrit :
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:32:02AM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > Lionel, could QEMU be used here? I guess the driver expects to have
> > kernel level access to the machine, so we could either:
>
Hiya Lionel,
--- Lionel Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:32:02AM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > Lionel, could QEMU be used here? I guess the driver expects to have
> > kernel level access to the machine, so we could either:
>
> Well, as I have no idea how .SYS loading w
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:32:02AM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Lionel, could QEMU be used here? I guess the driver expects to have
> kernel level access to the machine, so we could either:
Well, as I have no idea how .SYS loading working and how it interfaces with
the kernel, I cannot comment here.
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexandre - do these options sound sane?
I would suggest investigating the problems before we start designing
the solutions...
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 drive
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" pe
>"the Copyright Office ruled that the DMCA does not block software
>developers from using reverse engineering to circumvent digital
>protection of copyright material if they do so to achieve
>interoperability with an independently created computer program."
So some people in the US do believe in
>In the mean time, (and as long as people in the US are involved in Wine,)
>we're stuck with them.
Not is we publish (Host) wine outside the US.
>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
"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 j
[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?
If we can work out how to load the driver in question (which remember is
safedisk specific, there's others) t
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 thi
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 wi
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 viol
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 DM
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
[snip]
subject to trivial circumvention. I can't see how this can be done
without requiring a DMCA violation in Wine, the O/S kernel, or requiring
the copying of a closed-source driver that *itself* is irreplacable
(choosing to load it from Wine and say "don't edit this Win
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 performe
> >
> > Why about trying to get this driver working on top of current ntdll ?
> > All drivers accesses should pass by kernel calls no ?
>
> In the perfect world, yes.. but this is not how most copy protections
> do it.
>
> Using the copy protection's driver directly will IMHO not be possible
> w
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Raphaël Junqueira wrote:
> -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
>> >
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
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 t
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 lo
> 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
-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" i
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
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 p
> 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.
--- 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 t
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 s
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,
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
http://www.winehq
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
>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 Sunday 02 November 2003 03.58, Raphaël Junqueira wrote:
> > One other thought. At some point in time we will have to address copy
> > protection. I dont want to get into legal discussions and I dont intend
> > looking into it (yet), BUT would I be correct in saying that if someone
> > worked out
46 matches
Mail list logo
