Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 10:00:26AM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Yeah, I agree. OpenSSL seems to be the most comprehensive, but
> its licence stinks and this is why gnutls was written in the first
> place. Now that Mozilla adopted the triple MPL/GPL/LGPL license,
> there's no reason to keep gnutls any more.
GNUtls is needed for GPL programs using SSL.
What's wrong with GPL programs using the Mozilla implementation?
Last time I checked NSS was totally GPL compatible.
--
// Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/
http://www.develer.com/