Re: licensing confusion

[Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org>]

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:49:10PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Of course, there are alternatives to OpenSSL.  It may make the most sense
>> to simply use GNUTLS.  I'm not sure whether there exists an OpenSSL
>> compatible API for GNUTLS,

> % dlocate -L libgnutls10 | grep openssl
> /usr/lib/libgnutls-openssl.so.10.1.4
> /usr/lib/libgnutls-openssl.so.10

> An OpenSSL-compatible wrapper for GNUTLS has been available for years,
> but I do not know how complete it is.

I do not know either, but would like to remark that GnuTLS'
OpenSSL-wrapper is licensed under GPL instead of LGPL like
the main GnuTLS code.
                   cu andreas
-- 
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
                    Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel