4 ms·

Apparently TrueCrypt still has the crazy license which no one can quite figure out if it's an amateur attempt to write an open source license, or an extremely s

Apparently TrueCrypt still has the crazy license which no one can quite figure out if it's an amateur attempt to write an open source license, or an extremely subtle trap to lure people into thinking it's an open source license so that they can later sue.

nodata 13y ago
It's not open source: http://opensource.org/licenses http://opensource.org/licenses
- richardfontana 13y ago
  The absence of the TrueCrypt license on the OSI-certified list itself does not signify much, since the license was AFAIK never submitted for OSI approval, but Linux distros among others have raised concerns about several versions of the license in the past, and the current one continues to be problematic IMO. Some recent discussion has been going on on the OSI license-discuss mailing list for those interested: see http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001293.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/201... and followup messages. (Disclaimer: am an OSI director and also am Red Hat lawyer who was involved in reviewing and rejecting the TrueCrypt license for Fedora.)
  - nodata 13y ago
    Thanks for the info, there's a lot of old information around. The Wikipedia page seems to indicate you (as Red Hat) have no further objections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_Source_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_S... - I guess this is wrong. and the OSI minutes page seems to indicate the TrueCrypt license was going to be rejected (maybe I'm misreading this): http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 - but this is from 2006.
    - richardfontana 13y ago
      The assertion that TrueCrypt "has now managed to fix all the problems cited by Red Hat Legal (relayed by Tom Callaway)" is false (I'm not Tom Callaway but I am confident he would agree with me on this). The points I mention in the license-discuss posting yesterday http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001313.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/201... were applicable (as far as I can remember) to earlier versions we looked at and as to which we raised concerns to TrueCrypt. As I noted in that posting, TrueCrypt did change some things in response to the barrage of criticism, but not enough.
jordigh 13y ago
I wonder why they refuse to simply pick a standard free license. They obviously have been able to change the license a number of times, so it's not like it's a problem of having to get permission from all of the copyright holders...

nodata 13y ago

It's not open source: http://opensource.org/licenses http://opensource.org/licenses

richardfontana 13y ago
The absence of the TrueCrypt license on the OSI-certified list itself does not signify much, since the license was AFAIK never submitted for OSI approval, but Linux distros among others have raised concerns about several versions of the license in the past, and the current one continues to be problematic IMO. Some recent discussion has been going on on the OSI license-discuss mailing list for those interested: see http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001293.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/201... and followup messages. (Disclaimer: am an OSI director and also am Red Hat lawyer who was involved in reviewing and rejecting the TrueCrypt license for Fedora.)
- nodata 13y ago
  Thanks for the info, there's a lot of old information around. The Wikipedia page seems to indicate you (as Red Hat) have no further objections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_Source_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_S... - I guess this is wrong. and the OSI minutes page seems to indicate the TrueCrypt license was going to be rejected (maybe I'm misreading this): http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 - but this is from 2006.
  - richardfontana 13y ago
    The assertion that TrueCrypt "has now managed to fix all the problems cited by Red Hat Legal (relayed by Tom Callaway)" is false (I'm not Tom Callaway but I am confident he would agree with me on this). The points I mention in the license-discuss posting yesterday http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001313.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/201... were applicable (as far as I can remember) to earlier versions we looked at and as to which we raised concerns to TrueCrypt. As I noted in that posting, TrueCrypt did change some things in response to the barrage of criticism, but not enough.

jordigh 13y ago

I wonder why they refuse to simply pick a standard free license. They obviously have been able to change the license a number of times, so it's not like it's a problem of having to get permission from all of the copyright holders...