On 30/05/2014 21:00, Brandon Perry wrote: > Two issues with this: > > 1) TrueCrypt wasn't free as in freedom, it was free as in beer. These forks > break the license afaik. Not seeing this to be honest. I have taken a look at the 3.0 licence (applicable to 7.1a), and can't see any real reason to state that you couldn't fork the project under a new name, but keeping the same code base and licence. Its possible I missed something though, which actual term do you feel prevents forking?
> 2) Do you trust these users to understand the codebase thoroughly enough > and understand cryptography enough to not introduce stupid crypto bugs? > That is a huge caveat. No. But if there is an independent auditor already being paid to audit the code, and THAT project has plenty of funding left, it would seem a worthwhile use of the money to audit any new changes as they are committed, so that once we HAVE an audited codebase, it stays audited despite being a moving target. _______________________________________________ Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/
