Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl
andrew at mcdonald.org.uk
Thu Aug 28 23:11:19 CEST 2008
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:36:11PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I agree that libgnutls-openssl is ugly... however, I think there are
> some licensing corner cases where libgnutls-openssl actually is useful
> to some people.
> I think if people send patches we can apply them, but I don't see any
> reason to do anything beyond that.
I agree (and I'm the one that wrote most of it).
For the record (and to defend myself, since Simon just called something
I wrote ugly :-) I originally wrote it as a quick-and-dirty hack to
allow some applications in Debian to continue to provide SSL support,
when this would otherwise have been dropped due to GPL/OpenSSL licence
compatibility questions. The main reason it was only ever GPL (rather
than LGPL) was to discourage its use for other than this particular
E-mail: andrew at mcdonald.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Gnutls-devel