On Sunday 03 November 2002 10:50 pm, Gavriel State wrote: > Mark Hannessen wrote: > >>When the patch was published, there was a discussion, and the > >> conclusion was that the code is very probably legal, and is not > >> against DMCA > >> > >>Are you sure about the above statements? Have you checked that, or > >> it is just your opinion? > > > > Carlos words regarding copy protection: > >>You aren't giving hints to decrypt some code, simply implementing > >> the win32 API, and sometimes implementing a PC architecture, it is > >> far away of decrypt code ;). > > Laurent's copy protection patch, while impressive, does have a pretty > serious copyright-related issue, which has nothing to do with the > DMCA. The problem is that his SafeDisc driver is - at least in parts > - a direct translation of a dissassembly. Such translation means > that technically it's a derivative work, and thus would require the > agreement of the original copyright owner to redistribute. > > -Gav
hmm.... that's too bad. couldn't this problem be eliminated by creating a safedisc "spec" from this patch, and doing a dirty-room/clean-room number on it, by implementing that "spec" from scratch? Dunno if it's worth the effort... are a lot of people really in need of safedisc support? -- gmt "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" --President Bill Clinton, MTV interview, 1993
