Re: Copy protection

[Tim Schmidt]

On 10/3/06, Robert Lunnon  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