Am Donnerstag 22 Januar 2009 08:08:43 schrieb Alon Bar-Lev: > On 1/22/09, Marc Rios Valles <m...@c3po.es> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have been making some test and if I don't put the two functions in > > libopensc.exports I get a segfault accessing to them... > > But these were prototyped at internal.h and internal.h was never made > public. So whoever wrote this driver used internal functions, I am not sure > this is correct. > > As far as I can see if you copy these functions and two other > functions that relay on these into your code it would work.
don't copy code until you checked the license situation. my point of view is: there is not a single external driver that I'm aware off. thus we could remove the whole code for allowing external loadable drivers, as there are none, and that would simplify the code. about the internal/external situation: our long term goal should be to allow only internal tool to use the internal api, and suggest using the pkcs#11 interface to everyone. the only one using the internal api is openssh, and it can be ported to pkcs#11 - alon has done that, but it is a part of a huge change that is unlikely to find many adopters (my personal guess - I think people like that ssh is very easy and simple, and adding x.509 results in a quite complex thing I guess). I think we should discuss this scenario: is it ok if someone uses opensc, changes it as he likes, and published the resulting code and binaries - with one file only published as *.o (his new card driver)? I guess that captures the spirit of the LGPL quite nicely and is quite usable too. (but I have not checked the wording of the LGPL to find out if that is ok, and I'm no lawyer either...) Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
