Zeljko Vrba wrote: > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> >> I agree... So if we all understand the need of PKCS#11 in order to >> access cryptographic tokens, what I don't understand is how come >> people choose to develop low-level applications in order to work with specific devices? >> > Neither do I understand that. Werner didn't give a single plausible argument except possibly of license incompatibility. But in my understanding, > just incorporating PKCS#11 support into GnuPG would NOT cause license incompatibility. It would happen at run-time if the user chooses to > load GPL-incompatible binary PKCS#11 driver (which most of them are).
Right... This argument was given to me also... But I could not find any justification for it... Let's say you use GPLed licensed program on windows... It loads kernel32.dll, right? Since your GPLed program does not contain any other licensed code it is still GPLed... The same goes with GPLed licensed program that loads PKCS#11 module... I think it is the same as gpg works with vendor's X card... The card runs an operating system that is not GPLed... And yet... gpg is GPL... Moreover, I've found that opensc and PAM PKCS11 are LGPL and that openCryptoki (http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencryptoki) is GPL. So... I think licensing should not be an issue... Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
