OpenPGP Card

Peter Pentchev roam at
Mon Sep 5 21:33:09 CEST 2005

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? :)


Peter Pentchev	roam at    roam at    roam at
PGP key:
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
This sentence was in the past tense.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050905/0a0fe6cd/attachment.pgp

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list