Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl

[Andrew McDonald]

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.

Andrew
-- 
Andrew McDonald
E-mail: andrew at mcdonald.org.uk
http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/andrew/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20080828/b871d491/attachment.pgp>