On September 30, 2003 11:51 am, Ove Kaaven wrote: > And it's "impossible" because the patch we're talking about does not > actually implement copy protection. It only makes Wine implement certain > Windows quirks. For Wine not to implement these quirks in certain APIs > may be considered bugs, and how do you abstract away bugfixes?
Well, these should just be contributed back... :) That would be in the spirit of cooperation we're trying to promote. > Anyway, if you're really insistent, perhaps you can get Gav to let you > sign a NDA and see the code for yourself, then come up with a way to > abstract it, but you'd have to talk to him about it. I'd be interesting, but I don't think I want to sign any NDA. You guys know the problem a lot better than I do, it seems to be there's simply lack of political will. I mean, some of the stuff you guys doing may be hard to abstract, but I doubt that we can't "free" most of the DLLs of such copy protection hacks. In other words, you're saying this stuff touches a lot of DLLs ATM, so those can't be shared with Wine. Maybe the 20/80 rule applies here as well, in the sense that with 20% of the work, 80% of these DLLs can be freed. -- Dimi.
