Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl
tmraz at redhat.com
Fri Aug 29 10:21:53 CEST 2008
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 10:04 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Andrew McDonald <andrew at mcdonald.org.uk> writes:
> > 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
> > reason.
> Sorry, I didn't mean to belittle your contribution -- I wasn't talking
> about the code per se but the idea of having a OpenSSL compatibility
> library in GnuTLS generally.
> However, since people use it, I think we can keep the code and apply any
> patches sent to us, but at least right now I don't see anyone doing much
> work beyond that.
Hopefully I will have a time to write such patch some time in the next
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
More information about the Gnutls-devel