2010/3/20 Andreas Jellinghaus <a...@dungeon.inka.de>: > as far as I know the spanish DNI and ceres cards are used with modules > for opensc (not sure if modified or not). > > OpenSC has a "plugin loader" for external, binary only modules, and > if they used this code, they don't need to publish the source code for > the binaries of their plugins. Yes, the Linux instructions talk about installing opensc and opensc-dnie which feels like you describe (and how I remember it was explained some years ago) But I suspect things have changed. The code that is installed with OS X is a single libopensc that contains a lot of mixed symbols, some of which don't exist in OpenSC code. For example sc_pkcs15_get_card_objects in pkcs15_default.o, which also contains other symbols which indeed are in OpenSC.
So I think the module thing does not apply any more, at least not on OS X. > * if you use LGPL code, make sure it is in a way, so we can improve the > code. for example it is best if the LGPL code is linked as shared library > and the shared library can be replaced with a new and improved version. What would only make sense with PKCS#11 module. The rest of OpenSC does not fit here. > * better not use static linking - you would need to publish your all > object code and linking instructions, so we can replace the objects > belonging to the LGPL code with new and improved versions and link > all together to reproduce the binary you provide, but with the > improved internal. > * if you improve LGPL code itself, you need to publish that under LGPL > as well. code that has the LGPL copyright header stays under that license, > no matter how little or much you add. You don't need to *publish* it, you need to make it available to people to whom you have distributed the changed code. They have the right to ask for the code. > * evil tricks are not allowed, the license has legalese for that. > for example if you applications uses a LGPL library, but validates > the checksum of it, and refuses to work on a new and improved version > of the same library: that is a license violation, as it would stop us > from improving our LGPL library, and using it with your software. Lawyers get their living from tricks. Classifying them as evil or not evil is subjective and can be appealed ;) > of course I'm not a lawyer, but from my best understanding of the code and > experience as open source developer and advocate, this is my point of view. Yes. I'll re-feed the information as we get it to my law-degree advisor, to get informed comments. We should contact FSFE to ask for help as well, they should deal with such situations and have the knowledge and manpower as well. _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
