3 ms·

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.wiki

by 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.