5 ms·
The Strange Origins of TrueCrypt
- noja 11y agoTrueCrypt isn't open source, it was freeware with the source available.
- cyphar 11y agoIt also wasn't free software, which is more important than if it was "open source".
- cpach 11y agoTo be fair, Open Source is a well-defined term: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
- cyphar 11y ago"open source" is a well-defined term, but there's no logic behind the definition (there's no reason why those 10 and only those 10 rules are necessary for it to be "open source"). Free software has 4 very well-reasoned rules that once you accept the 10 rules of "open source" fall out (as well as a few others that aren't in the OSD).
- RealityVoid 11y agoWhat makes it not-open source? I don't get it.
- noja 11y agohttps://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source
- RealityVoid 11y agoOk, but the source code was published, everybody could see it. Of course, according to the definition, you need to actually be able, legally, to modify the SW - and from what I gather from this discussion, TrueCrypt creators had copyright on the source code? (this I did not know) How do you call SW with public source-code that maintains copyright? Apparently it isn't "open source", but what is it?
- noja 11y agoApart from TrueCrypt, I've never seen source code without a license attached to it: either a proprietary license or non-proprietary license. So without the presence of a license there I'd simply call it proprietary.
- beardog 11y agoBut for the TrueCrypt dev(s) to enforce their copyright wouldn't they have to break anonymity?
- dang 11y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11381625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11381625