[opensc-devel] IAS EC cards (Re: [opensc-user] Oberthur cards)

[Martin Paljak]

2010/3/20 Andreas Jellinghaus <aj at 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.