5 ms·

It is worth being clear that TrueCrypt is not an 'Open Source project'. The source is available, but it is under a proprietary license designed to discourage f

It is worth being clear that TrueCrypt is not an 'Open Source project'. The source is available, but it is under a proprietary license designed to discourage forks and reuse and allowing the original authors to sue you. The one-off TrueCrypt license means that TrueCrypt code can not be utilized under any OSI-recognized open source licenses as it is incompatible with them. The FSF, Ubuntu, etc all agree that TrueCrypt can't be considered open source. The source is available, but it's difficult for you to use it other than to analyze it.

Netcob 12y ago
I'm not an expert, but I thought there was a distinction between what's meant by "Open Source" and "Free Software". The way I understand it: Open Source: You can analyze the source code and build it yourself - which is great if you don't trust anyone to give you binaries from what you analyzed. Usually at least free as in "free beer". Free Software: Open source software which gives you lots of permissions via its license, while making sure you get to keep these permissions. Usually free as in "free speech" (in addition to "free beer"). TrueCrypt not being free as in speech is a bummer, but being able to inspect the code and build it yourself is a critical advantage, especially when it comes to cryptography. I have a hard time imagining BitLocker not having any backdoors built in. At the very least it'll have some kind of weak random number generator or whatever, making sure that with the right algorithm you get to crack it within a few minutes or so.
- scribu 12y ago
  From Wikipedia [1]: "In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone" So no, "open source" doesn't just mean being able to read the source code; it also means being able to modify and redistribute it, just like "free software". The difference between the two terms isn't very meaningful in practical terms, IMHO. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
  - Tyr42 12y ago
    No, there is a meaningful difference [1]. Free (as in freedom) Software guarantees that the end user can always get, modify, and redistribute the source, by requiring any use of the source code to be under the same license. In short, copyleft. For example [2], since linksys modified and extended GPL'd code (the linux kernel) in creating the WRT54G wireless router, they had to release their work under the GPL too, which is how to OpenWrt project was created. The term Open Source applies to projects with more permissive licenses, such as the MIT license, where there is not obligation to release your modified version of the source to the end user. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt#History
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Free software is a subset of open source software. Truecrypt wasn't open source software, as in it didn't have an open source license. It was proprietary, with no ability to fork it, but the source code was available. It's like Microsoft making available the source code of Windows on Github so everyone can see it - without giving it an open source license.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    > Free software is a subset of open source software No, they're the same set. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... Edit: before you knee-jerk downvote, please read my link. Open source is a term coined by OSI as a replacement synonym for free software. We have somehow culturally forgotten this. We keep repeating some other version of the facts for some reason and have forgotten what "open source" really means.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      This is not even vaguely true.
      - jordigh 12y ago
        Please read my link. Open source is a term coined by OSI as a replacement synonym for free software. We have somehow culturally forgotten this. We keep repeating some other version of the facts for some reason and have forgotten what "open source" really means.
        eli 12y ago
        The term predates OSI.
        jordigh 12y ago
        No. Please read my link above. This is thing #2 in my link above. Christine Petersen coined the term. OSI was then formed under this term. There is an unrelated "open source intelligence" older term, about how to spy on people using publicly-available sources, but nobody called software "open source" before OSI. Eric Raymond confirms as much: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
- jordigh 12y ago
  > I'm not an expert, but I thought there was a distinction between what's meant by "Open Source" and "Free Software". No, there is no difference: http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... Edit: before you knee-jerk downvote, please read my link. Open source is a term coined by OSI as a replacement synonym for free software. We have somehow culturally forgotten this. We keep repeating some other version of the facts for some reason and have forgotten what "open source" really means.
w0rm 12y ago
I think you have mixed "Open-Source" and "Free Software". TrueCrypt IS Open-Source. You can read the source. It is not, however, free software. It's free to use, but not free as in GPL.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  TrueCrypt IS Open-Source. You can read the source. Depending on whose definition you accept, simply being able to "read the source" does not make something "open source". While not accepted by everyone, the Open Source Initiative's "Open Source Definition"[1] is a very widely accepted definition of what it means to be "Open Source". I would posit that "Shared Source"[2] is a more accurate term for a project where the source is available, but the license doesn't permit all of the things required by the OSD. [1]: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source
  - flomo 12y ago
    Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it. If my understanding is correct, the TrueCrypt developers were attempting to make an "OpenSource(tm)" license, but the OSI folks had some technical objections. So the software falls into a gray area where it's not quite officially OpenSource, but it still could be modified and distributed by third parties.
    - jordigh 12y ago
      > Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it. No, it was not. OSI coined it. Specifically, Christine Petersen coined it. It appears to be such a natural term now that we have become convinced that we were using it before OSI, but we weren't. The earliest OED citation for "open source" is from 1998, around the time when OSI coined it. If you have an earlier citation, please submit it to the OED. I don't believe one exists. There is an unrelated term "open source intelligence" which is indeed older, but nobody called software "open source" before OSI.

Netcob 12y ago

I'm not an expert, but I thought there was a distinction between what's meant by "Open Source" and "Free Software". The way I understand it: Open Source: You can analyze the source code and build it yourself - which is great if you don't trust anyone to give you binaries from what you analyzed. Usually at least free as in "free beer". Free Software: Open source software which gives you lots of permissions via its license, while making sure you get to keep these permissions. Usually free as in "free speech" (in addition to "free beer"). TrueCrypt not being free as in speech is a bummer, but being able to inspect the code and build it yourself is a critical advantage, especially when it comes to cryptography. I have a hard time imagining BitLocker not having any backdoors built in. At the very least it'll have some kind of weak random number generator or whatever, making sure that with the right algorithm you get to crack it within a few minutes or so.

scribu 12y ago
From Wikipedia [1]: "In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone" So no, "open source" doesn't just mean being able to read the source code; it also means being able to modify and redistribute it, just like "free software". The difference between the two terms isn't very meaningful in practical terms, IMHO. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
- Tyr42 12y ago
  No, there is a meaningful difference [1]. Free (as in freedom) Software guarantees that the end user can always get, modify, and redistribute the source, by requiring any use of the source code to be under the same license. In short, copyleft. For example [2], since linksys modified and extended GPL'd code (the linux kernel) in creating the WRT54G wireless router, they had to release their work under the GPL too, which is how to OpenWrt project was created. The term Open Source applies to projects with more permissive licenses, such as the MIT license, where there is not obligation to release your modified version of the source to the end user. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt#History
higherpurpose 12y ago
Free software is a subset of open source software. Truecrypt wasn't open source software, as in it didn't have an open source license. It was proprietary, with no ability to fork it, but the source code was available. It's like Microsoft making available the source code of Windows on Github so everyone can see it - without giving it an open source license.
- jordigh 12y ago
  > Free software is a subset of open source software No, they're the same set. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... Edit: before you knee-jerk downvote, please read my link. Open source is a term coined by OSI as a replacement synonym for free software. We have somehow culturally forgotten this. We keep repeating some other version of the facts for some reason and have forgotten what "open source" really means.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    This is not even vaguely true.
    - jordigh 12y ago
      Please read my link. Open source is a term coined by OSI as a replacement synonym for free software. We have somehow culturally forgotten this. We keep repeating some other version of the facts for some reason and have forgotten what "open source" really means.
      - eli 12y ago
        The term predates OSI.
        jordigh 12y ago
        No. Please read my link above. This is thing #2 in my link above. Christine Petersen coined the term. OSI was then formed under this term. There is an unrelated "open source intelligence" older term, about how to spy on people using publicly-available sources, but nobody called software "open source" before OSI. Eric Raymond confirms as much: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
jordigh 12y ago
> I'm not an expert, but I thought there was a distinction between what's meant by "Open Source" and "Free Software". No, there is no difference: http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... Edit: before you knee-jerk downvote, please read my link. Open source is a term coined by OSI as a replacement synonym for free software. We have somehow culturally forgotten this. We keep repeating some other version of the facts for some reason and have forgotten what "open source" really means.

w0rm 12y ago

I think you have mixed "Open-Source" and "Free Software". TrueCrypt IS Open-Source. You can read the source. It is not, however, free software. It's free to use, but not free as in GPL.

mindcrime 12y ago
TrueCrypt IS Open-Source. You can read the source. Depending on whose definition you accept, simply being able to "read the source" does not make something "open source". While not accepted by everyone, the Open Source Initiative's "Open Source Definition"[1] is a very widely accepted definition of what it means to be "Open Source". I would posit that "Shared Source"[2] is a more accurate term for a project where the source is available, but the license doesn't permit all of the things required by the OSD. [1]: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source
- flomo 12y ago
  Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it. If my understanding is correct, the TrueCrypt developers were attempting to make an "OpenSource(tm)" license, but the OSI folks had some technical objections. So the software falls into a gray area where it's not quite officially OpenSource, but it still could be modified and distributed by third parties.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    > Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it. No, it was not. OSI coined it. Specifically, Christine Petersen coined it. It appears to be such a natural term now that we have become convinced that we were using it before OSI, but we weren't. The earliest OED citation for "open source" is from 1998, around the time when OSI coined it. If you have an earlier citation, please submit it to the OED. I don't believe one exists. There is an unrelated term "open source intelligence" which is indeed older, but nobody called software "open source" before OSI.