here we are. Zsolt about Safedisc 1.x
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 ;).
well i'am not a lawyer, so i guess i was probably wrong about copyprotection being illegal after all.
Zsolt also said he could provide a safedisc patch against the current cvs.
Zsolt, could you give us a status of your safedisc patch ? does it work with all winver versions or is this one limited to nt40 ? ( most games do not run in nt40 mode ) is it safedisc 1.x only or safedisc 2.x as well. anyway, any work on copyprotection is very very usefull for everbody. so please impent everything you have. Mark Hannessen
On Sunday 03 November 2002 15:53, Mark Hannessen wrote:
here we are.
Zsolt about Safedisc 1.x
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 ;).
well i'am not a lawyer, so i guess i was probably wrong about copyprotection being illegal after all.
Zsolt also said he could provide a safedisc patch against the current cvs.
Zsolt, could you give us a status of your safedisc patch ?
That is not my patch. It was developed by Laurent Pinchart. I tried to help him, but I could not (I'm not too good in reverse engineering, driver programming). Alexandre was also providing some code to him (some server communication fixes). All I have done is to maintain it in my cvs checkout. (I had to readd some code Alexandre has removed, which broke the patch). So I have it, and it works. I use a program (a dictionary) protected by safedisc every day.
does it work with all winver versions or is this one limited to nt40 ?
It runs only in nt40, win2k or winxp. That is the NT architectures. (Though I have only tested nt40). The reason is that the debugger detection code used by the safedisc enabled program is different if you run 9x or NT architectures. On 9x architecture it tries to play with the debug registers, and other nasty things. On NT it playes more nicely, because NT is a more restricted OS. So it may be possible to adapt it to win9x, but you will need some severe knowledge of the x86 architecture.
( most games do not run in nt40 mode )
I dont know nothing about that. But many games run on win2k :)
is it safedisc 1.x only or safedisc 2.x as well.
It is safedisc 1.x only. Laurent had plans to implement 2.x as well, but he did not have a program protected with it, so that never happened. And after some time, he dissappeared from the list. (Last I heard about him was when the patch was broken by Alexandre's changes. I waited for him to provide an updated patch, but probably he was waiting for Alexandre to fix the issue. After some time, I have reverted some of the Alexandre's changes to make the patch work.)
anyway, any work on copyprotection is very very usefull for everbody. so please impent everything you have.
I dont understand the 'impent' word :) But here is the patch against the cvs which I have done 1-2 weeks ago. I think it should apply to current cvs without major problems. If not let me know, and I will make an updated version. Also, there was many discussion on wine-devel about this patch. Starting with my mail 'debugging longman dictionary' somewhere in March of 2002. Then there is the safedisc FAQ posted by Laurent at Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:32:29 +0200 About the same time was the original patch posted to wine-patches. There were some more discussion in May of 2002. And also there was an attempt by Dustin Navea to resolve the (technical) issues about the patch, so it could be applied to cvs, but I could not find the mail in my archive, tough if I remember correctly then there is a mail with detailed explanation by Alexandre, of the reasons the patch is not applied. Hope this is enough pointer for you to find the info you need in the mail archives. Regards Zsolt
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 -- Gavriel State, CEO & CTO TransGaming Technologies Inc. gav(a)transgaming.com http://www.transgaming.com/ Let the games begin
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
A solvable problem, mind you. He needs to create an interface declaration of what the algorithms and interfaceses need to be, and have someone else implement based on that. That is called "Clean room" and has been agreed as non-deriviative work. Sh.
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
greg turner wrote:
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?
I think a user should be able to just install wine, insert their favorite cd, run the setup and start playing. I bet that having a nice amount of games and progs that would work this way would increase the use of wine with a few hunderd percent. ( and in the end more people who will commit patches ) but we will never reach this because we do not have copyprotection support. so yes !! i do think this is importent. note: i have no idea how much work it needed to clean this, but i do know that every new game out there is using safedisc 2.x so finisching this patch will only get old games working. so unless we can use/modify this patch for 2.x support it is probably a waste of time. but if we can.... Mark Hannessen
On Monday 04 November 2002 09:36 am, Mark Hannessen wrote:
greg turner wrote:
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?
I think a user should be able to just install wine, insert their favorite cd, run the setup and start playing.
I bet that having a nice amount of games and progs that would work this way would increase the use of wine with a few hunderd percent. ( and in the end more people who will commit patches )
but we will never reach this because we do not have copyprotection support. so yes !! i do think this is importent.
I think DirectX and other components needed to actually run the game are far more important than copy protection support. Transgaming's winex has that support, and many subscribers still use no-cd cracks because they work better. Getting actual games to run should be the biggest priority. Copy protection support doesn't do much good when 90% of the games don't run anyway. It also takes considerable resources away from other tasks, and will get outdated by the time wine actually starts running the games. -- -- Igor
greg turner wrote:
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?
Stupid question that will probably be ripped to shreds but what about if we release the binaries with copy protection support but not put it in CVS (kinda like transgaming, except that users dont have to pay for the binaries)? __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Stupid question that will probably be ripped to shreds but what about if we release the binaries with copy protection support but not put it in CVS (kinda like transgaming, except that users dont have to pay for the binaries)?
It's illegal according to the LGPL as far as I know (except, of course, if all (c) holders accept to do an exception to the rule :-) ). I may be wrong though :-) Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/
--- Lionel Ulmer <lionel.ulmer(a)free.fr> wrote:
Stupid question that will probably be ripped to shreds but what about if we release the binaries with copy protection support but not put it in CVS (kinda like transgaming, except that users dont have to pay for the binaries)?
It's illegal according to the LGPL as far as I know (except, of course, if all (c) holders accept to do an exception to the rule :-) ).
I may be wrong though :-)
From my understanding of the LGPL, only offspring have to recontribute to the main branch (i.e. transgaming would have to recontribute any changes to winehq if they used any of winehq's code, post license switch, unless alexandre agreed to allow them not to) I dont know of any place where it says that the main branch cant put one thing into binary releases that they leave off of the source release...
Of course, I could be wrong as well... <g> -Dustin __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
On Monday 04 November 2002 04:31 pm, Dustin Navea wrote:
--- Lionel Ulmer <lionel.ulmer(a)free.fr> wrote:
Stupid question that will probably be ripped to shreds but what about if
we
release the binaries with copy protection support but not put it in CVS (kinda like transgaming, except that users dont have to pay for the
binaries)?
It's illegal according to the LGPL as far as I know (except, of course, if all (c) holders accept to do an exception to the rule :-) ).
I may be wrong though :-)
From my understanding of the LGPL, only offspring have to recontribute to the main branch (i.e. transgaming would have to recontribute any changes to winehq if they used any of winehq's code, post license switch, unless alexandre agreed to allow them not to) I dont know of any place where it says that the main branch cant put one thing into binary releases that they leave off of the source release...
Of course, I could be wrong as well... <g>
First, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be wrong... The _copyright owner_ can do whatever he or she pleases with their code. In the case of wine, there are hundreds of copyright owners (people who at some point wrote code) which have licensed their code to the main tree under the LGPL. The main project is not a legal entity by itself, I believe - it's just a sum of the individual contributions. To use the code in a way that the original license does not permit (and the LGPL does not permit this), you would have to locate and persuade every single contributor to agree on the changes. Good luck getting that one done. -- -- Igor
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.
Hmmm, if wine should be a 100% windows api implementation, should the safedisc games run in it? Then the question is implement the features from the windows api what the game need to check if it is original or no, you needn't even know how the protection does work. The only way that the author's game has to check if the cdrom is original or no, are the bytes from cdrom. If you have correctly implemented the API (and other features) needed by the game to check it, then it should work. (Some games uses info from the cdrom-subchannel, and the last time what i tested it under linux, it was really very bad supported :() The complex part is that the author's game uses rare features from the OS to avoid that the crackers will do a crack easily. Regards, Carlos. -- ___ _ \ | / Infraestructuras | . |._ _ _| | ___ ___ ___ http://www.andago.com | || ' |/ . |<_> |/ . |/ . \__ GNU/Linux |_|_||_|_|\___|<___|\_. |\___/ _ \ __|\ \ / Carlos A. Lozano <___'/ | \ -_) __/\__ \ > < -_) [ carlos.lozano(a)andago.com ]\___|_| ____/ _/\_\___| [ calb(a)epsxe.com ] http://www.epsxe.com
participants (9)
-
Carlos Lozano -
Dustin Navea -
Gavriel State -
Greg Turner -
Igor Izyumin -
Lionel Ulmer -
Mark Hannessen -
Shachar Shemesh -
Zsolt Rizsanyi