Symbol conflict between libgnutls-openssl and real openssl

Tomas Mraz tmraz at
Fri Aug 29 10:21:53 CEST 2008

On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 10:04 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 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.

Hopefully I will have a time to write such patch some time in the next

Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb

More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list