On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if you want other people to respect your copyright and licenses on your > code, you should start respecting other peoples copyright and licenses first. > and using PKCS#11 without proper attribution is a breach of that license - > even if the license is a very stupid one, and it is also stupid that standard > header files have such strings attached at all. > > well, that is my point of view, you might come to a different conclusion. > hope it helps! > > Regards, Andreas > p.s. feel free to forward this to other people affected. opensc and > gnupg/scute use a re-written pkcs#11 header file that has maybe not 100% of > the definitions (we only added what we support / needed), but is compatible > and works for us - and is like public domain.
Oh... You mean the pkcs11 header files from RSA security problem... This is easy to solve using the g10 version. I've done this to the current putty patch, and I think I can do this easily for the puttysc patch. This is none issue, as it easy to solve. The question is whether we need to maintain a parallel solution. Alon. _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
