Well, one difference between LogicNP's CryptoLicensing and our TurboActivate is that we use hardware-locked licensing (see: How hardware-locked licensing works ), and they use the computer name. So, part of the difference is between properly designed licensing and sloppily designed licensing.
As far as the other differences in size, CryptoLicensing is entirely a .NET assembly (meaning it can rely on the .NET framework for cryptography, etc.), while TurboActivate is entirely "native" (no external dependencies). In other words, we don't have a hefty framework to build off of. Anything we do (well, most things we do) has to be built directly into TurboActivate.
There are many more substantial differences (we have more features, handle more edge cases, and support more platforms while making it as dead simple for the end-user), but the root of the differences is it's an Apples versus Oranges comparison.
Is that helpful?