Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl

Simon Josefsson simon at
Fri Aug 29 10:04:51 CEST 2008

Andrew McDonald <andrew at> 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.


More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list