'Lionel Elie Mamane' wrote:

I had understood that it was not a _protocol_ but a library API. HTTP
is a _protocol_ for data interchange over the network. I thought
PKCS#11 was a _library_ API and that you linked (dynamically at
run-time) a particular "implementation" of it (the card driver) into
your program to use it. If that's not the case, my previous messages
are void and meaningless.

PKCS#11 IS a library API. But really, how is API different from a
protocol? Is the only difference linking in the same address space?

Anyway, the "right" way, as I've understood Alon, is to make gpg use
gpg-agent. They communicate via a well defined _protocol_ and are not
_linked_ together.

So actually, the PKCS#11 licensing issue can be solved by independently
writing a BSD-licensed version of the gpg-agent.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Reply via email to