markr at signal100.com
Sat May 31 10:12:43 CEST 2014
On 31/05/2014 08:42, Johan Wevers wrote:
> On 31-05-2014 8:35, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> All that said, Free OTFE might be a good basis on which to continue
>> development if the licence terms of TrueCrypt 7.1a turn out to be too
>> restrictive to allow a successful fork.
> I think it is reasonbably safe to simply ignore the TC license and just
> fork it. Distribute the forked version without any license whatsoever.
> Given the secretive nature of the author, he should, for a start, first
> have to prove he is the author if he wanted to sue you.
> 2 possible reasons for this action seem likely to me: personal reasons
> (he's tired of the project) or a gag order. In both cases the author is
> unlikely to sue.
It should also be noted that the 'TrueCrypt License Version 3.0' (under
which TC 7.1a is licensed) includes three sublicences from included
software written by identifiable entities but on a brief reading none
of them seem to prevent TC from being forked.
All the same, merging the capabilities of FreeOTFE would be a
nice-to-have for a TrueCrypt fork.
1: Including one from E4M which was allegedly the subject of a legal
dispute early on in TC's history.
PGP public key: http://www.signal100.com/markr/pgp
Key ID: C9C5C162
More information about the Gnupg-users