3 ms·
> Chances are, someone will either fork TrueCrypt (version 3.1 of the TrueCrypt license seems to make this a legitimate possiblity) Given this comment and some
by Zancarius 12y ago
> Chances are, someone will either fork TrueCrypt (version 3.1 of the TrueCrypt license seems to make this a legitimate possiblity)
Given this comment and some inspiration from tacotime in this [1] post, it dawned on me: What if this whole thing is a not-so-subtle effort by the developer(s) to renew interest in TrueCrypt and pass the torch? The license ambiguity might be an issue (in terms of whether it retroactively covers encryption support in earlier versions or not), but if that were resolved, then perhaps all of this speculation, wild conspiracies, and other noise is for naught. Maybe this is their way of stepping down and saying "Hey, look, we're not maintaining this anymore. We're changing the license, so knock yourselves out."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814800
- kaoD 12y agoAs far as I know encryption wasn't removed in 7.2, just disabled via error messages. You could just fork it given the new license and reenable encryption, right?
- TheMacMini09 12y agoI think that would be possible, yes.
- Zancarius 12y agoIf you can believe the anonymous gists that were posted a day or so ago, huge swathes of code were removed containing much/some of the encryption logic. It's possible that may not be true, but forking it would be a possibility. I'm assuming that the license changes are technically retroactive since it seems the developer(s) have decided it's time to move on (and who can blame them after 10 years?).