[gmpi] Re: 3.18 Copy Protection
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:46:50 +0100
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:34:34 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> 1 - Host passes some host identifier, for example "Ardour v3.0". Plugins
> can then adapt based on that name. We *really* want to avoid plugins
> needing to adapt, but there is no harm in identifying the host, probably.
Yes, there is, c.f. ACPI. It should not be 'normal' for hosts to identify
themselves to plugins. Most machines ACPI modes have windows bug avoidance
branches in thier ACPI code, this means that the other branches dont get
properly tested, and when MS fix bug in thier ACPI VM either they change
thier vendor ID and have to use badly tested branches or they keep the old
ID and have to maintain bug compatibility for the rest of time. Non-MS OS
vendors have the same choice. Either way its a very bad situation.
> 2 - Hosts and plugins can do some sort of handshake, like public key
> crypto. One party sends a challenge which bothe encrypt and compare. But
> then every plugin needs to have a list of keys of valid hosts. BAAAAAD.
In the case Ron described its OK - the plugin is only supposed to work
with one host - though I dont like that idea very much - I guess they
could be kept in a "foo only" direcotry so they dont get scanned by other
hosts.
> Isn't it simpler to leave locking out of band?
Not entirely, you have to have some API hook so that it can take place.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
