Hi there, there are many issues in wine and you can work around most of them somehow but there are few that you can not bypass. Copy Protection: wine seems to support a few copy protection systems, but not all. No of course you could say that a nocd crack should be used to work around that issue, but what if there is none available? Many games are done for different countries in different versions. It is quite possible that a English crack won't work with a Spain, Greek, German,... version. Not to forget that such a crack is illegal in most countries already. What wold have to be done to get *all* copy protection system working? Starforce for example. Well or fool them enough to satisfy them would be good enough for me ;) Multiprocessor abilities: True, that is a recent development. But to say hat games won't use it or that there won't be windows software out there that can't use multiple processor sound a bit ignorant to me.. that's because I know that it is not true. At last for the games sector, there are a growing number of games that are able to use more than one CPU. All unreal3 based games for example will have multi CPU support. Are there plans for wine to change it to let it use more than just one CPU? bye
for multi core/cpu support just a quick quote from the distributed.net client> [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found an Intel Core 2 processor. > [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #3 (GARSP 6.0-asm-rt1-mmx). > [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] OGR-P2 #a: Loaded 25/4-1-69-9-7 > [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] OGR-P2 #b: Loaded 25/4-1-69-9-13 >2 processes running at 100% each
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Jochen <blackdrag at gmx.org> wrote:> Hi there, > > there are many issues in wine and you can work around most of them somehow > but there are few that you can not bypass. > > Copy Protection: > > wine seems to support a few copy protection systems, but not all. No of > course you could say that a nocd crack should be used to work around that > issue, but what if there is none available? Many games are done for > different countries in different versions. It is quite possible that a > English crack won't work with a Spain, Greek, German,... version. Not to > forget that such a crack is illegal in most countries already. What wold > have to be done to get *all* copy protection system working? Starforce for > example. Well or fool them enough to satisfy them would be good enough for > me ;)Not as easy as it sounds to support. Many depend on very low level kernel drivers or hooks which will be very difficult to implement in wine.> Multiprocessor abilities: > > True, that is a recent development. But to say hat games won't use it or > that there won't be windows software out there that can't use multiple > processor sound a bit ignorant to me.. that's because I know that it is not > true. At last for the games sector, there are a growing number of games that > are able to use more than one CPU. All unreal3 based games for example will > have multi CPU support. Are there plans for wine to change it to let it use > more than just one CPU?This should work. If not, file a bug for the app that doesn't work.
Elfe schrieb:> for multi core/cpu support just a quick quote from the distributed.net client > >> [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found an Intel Core 2 processor. >> [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #3 (GARSP 6.0-asm-rt1-mmx). >> [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] OGR-P2 #a: Loaded 25/4-1-69-9-7 >> [Jun 03 18:34:18 UTC] OGR-P2 #b: Loaded 25/4-1-69-9-13 > > 2 processes running at 100% eachok, I am sorry, seems I like I made something wrong here ;) bye Jochen
Jochen schrieb: [...] since I don't want to wait for my post to appear here.. I found http://wiki.winehq.org/CopyProtection, which I totally forgot to look at ;)
Jochen wrote:> > and it is not possible to fool them? Like for example in case of > starforce to install our own starforce driver? I don't really have an > idea about how this is working of course. But I see of course that gcc > and visual c are not producing the same code. >Creating a system to fool the original copy protection is equivalent to create a universal crack in the fact that it is not letting the protection system do it's job correctly (or at all). So it can't be part of wine. Jochen wrote:> > So what do I do if I have a game I want to get running on wine and it > uses an evil copy protection system? Trying to crack it by myself if > there is no such thing in the net? Or would there be some theoretical > way for wine that allows me to not to have to crack all these games? >You can complain to the creators of the product and/or the copy protection, don't expect to much from this thought as on the box it isn't written that it is compatible with wine.
Lets be a little clear here. We cannot do a fake starforce driver since that gets on the wrong side of DCMA. Its intentionally setting out to disable copy protection. Now providing fake wrappers answering all the questions the starforce driver asks is permitted under compatibility grounds. This does not mean that the copy protection is working perfectly any more. Like it may no longer detect that you have a Linux based cheat since it is most likely not seeing the Linux side. This falls into the compatibility section of DCMA and is legal. Applying cracks to the program as a temporary measure while working on getting the normal interface working is also still permitted. Nothing says that the copy protection still has to be working right. Just that we did not intentionally set out to disable it.
[quote="oiaohm"]Lets be a little clear here. We cannot do a fake starforce driver since that gets on the wrong side of DCMA. Its intentionally setting out to disable copy protection. Now providing fake wrappers answering all the questions the starforce driver asks is permitted under compatibility grounds. This does not mean that the copy protection is working perfectly any more. Like it may no longer detect that you have a Linux based cheat since it is most likely not seeing the Linux side. This falls into the compatibility section of DCMA and is legal. Applying cracks to the program as a temporary measure while working on getting the normal interface working is also still permitted. Nothing says that the copy protection still has to be working right. Just hmm, couldnt you make people with illegal copies be able to run them ?
oiaohm wrote:> Lets be a little clear here. > > We cannot do a fake starforce driver since that gets on the wrong side of DCMA. Its intentionally setting out to disable copy protection. > > Now providing fake wrappers answering all the questions the starforce driver asks is permitted under compatibility grounds. This does not mean that the copy protection is working perfectly any more. Like it may no longer detect that you have a Linux based cheat since it is most likely not seeing the Linux side. This falls into the compatibility section of DCMA and is legal. > > Applying cracks to the program as a temporary measure while working on getting the normal interface working is also still permitted. > > Nothing says that the copy protection still has to be working right. Just that we did not intentionally set out to disable it.hmm, couldnt you make people with illegal copies be able to run them ?
oiaohm wrote:> Lets be a little clear here. > > We cannot do a fake starforce driver since that gets on the wrong side of DCMA. Its intentionally setting out to disable copy protection. > > Now providing fake wrappers answering all the questions the starforce driver asks is permitted under compatibility grounds. This does not mean that the copy protection is working perfectly any more. Like it may no longer detect that you have a Linux based cheat since it is most likely not seeing the Linux side. This falls into the compatibility section of DCMA and is legal. > > Applying cracks to the program as a temporary measure while working on getting the normal interface working is also still permitted. > > Nothing says that the copy protection still has to be working right. Just that we did not intentionally set out to disable it.To be more clear, this statement might be right in your country but not in others. Applying cracks even in the sake of temporary compatibility can be seen has illegal by some countries as long as these cracks have not been officially made by the original product creator (and there are not much existing). Providing wrappers in the aim to fake the copy protection is also not legal. If a copy protection system is faked by something that is not intended to have this result (partial implementations, bugs, api changes...) and the license is not restricting the use of the copy protection with this kind of systems is legal. So from an worldwide legal vision, the use of cracks or anything made to fake a security device (may it be for compatibility) are illegal. If a security system is faked accidentally in a use compelling with the license of the product and of the protection system, then I think no country can consider it as illegal. So patching wine to have starforce say "OK, your disk is a real one" by faking the results is not legal because it will make illegal version works by actually bypassing the security tests and so bypassing the purpose of the security (aka. creating a universal crack for this protection system). Creating (or trying to) create a 1:1 implementation of the software / driver / kernel layer used by starforce to detect a real cd and having some fake positives and some fake negatives due to errors *might* be seen as legal if it complies with the starforce license and the one of the product using it.
Jochen wrote:> Tlarhices schrieb: > [...] > > > Providing wrappers in the aim to fake the copy protection is also not > > legal. If a copy protection system is faked by something that is not > > intended to have this result (partial implementations, bugs, api > > changes...) and the license is not restricting the use of the copy > > protection with this kind of systems is legal. > > > > you speak about license, but most of them are invalid.You want to try and challenge them in court? I'd like to see that instead of baseless claims. Jochen wrote:> > > Creating (or trying to) create a 1:1 implementation of the software / > > driver / kernel layer used by starforce to detect a real cd and > > having some fake positives and some fake negatives due to errors > > *might* be seen as legal if it complies with the starforce license > > and the one of the product using it. > > > > have you an example of a product with a license forbidding this?You don't need any license examples here - just pick any copyright. Creating something that matches 1 to 1 to the original called copying. And that you can't do on any copyrighted material. Besides you missed the part about DMCA which expressly prohibits *any* circumvention of security measures except for research work.