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 the checks is not acceptable.
>
> 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 that we would probobly not be violating the DMCA (although
> IANAL)
I agree. It would appear that secdrv.sys is not an essential part to the
decrypting process. If it were then there would be loads of
"secdrv-hacked.sys" type files floating around the internet. In actual fact,
most people seem to be able to decrypt the contents without touching this
file.
Rob
