On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:14:41PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > 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...
Hate to jump into this discussion, but isn't this *exactly* why Werner always keeps mentioning *shared* libraries? :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 This sentence was in the past tense.
pgpM5iAic7Epg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
