And to be clear, I say that without having thoroughly read the license. At a glance, the "no charge" issue mentioned in Spot's links seems to remain, but at least one other is remedied, possibly two.
Luis On Oct 14, 2013 3:32 PM, "Luis Villa" <[email protected]> wrote: > Might be a good idea to finally start the list of non-open licenses > someone suggested a few months ago ;) > > Luis > On Oct 14, 2013 2:28 PM, "Tom Callaway" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10/14/2013 09:32 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: >> > Obviously, I'd like to see TrueCrypt be truly open source. The ideal >> > solution is not to have them remove the words "open source" from their >> > self-description, but rather for their software to be under an >> > OSI-approved open source license >> >> I have not looked at the TrueCrypt license (in depth) in quite some >> time, but when Fedora and Red Hat reviewed it in 2008, not only was it >> non-free, it was actually dangerous. >> >> (from 2008): >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000273.html >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000276.html >> >> They appear to have reworded some concerning parts of that license, >> however, when we pointed out these concerns to them directly in 2008, >> their response was to forcefully (and rather rudely) reply that the >> problems caused by their license wording were not problems, but >> intentional. That alone gave us serious concern as to the intentions of >> the upstream, especially given the nature of the software under that >> license. >> >> Notable is that Section VI.3 appears to be the same in the TrueCrypt >> license as it was in 2008. It is arguably necessary for any Free or Open >> Source license to waive some "intellectual property rights" in order to >> share those rights (which default to being exclusive to the copyright >> holder) with others. This section was noted to the TrueCrypt upstream >> (in 2008) as potentially conflicting with the rest of the license, and >> again, they pointed out that they were aware of the potential conflict >> and that it was _intentional_. >> >> In short, we were forced to conclude the license was worded the way that >> it was (with clever wording traps) as a sort of sham license. >> >> For what it is worth, I'm not sure the OSI should voluntarily spend any >> time or effort on the TrueCrypt license unless the TrueCrypt copyright >> holder brings it forward themselves with a willingness to address these >> issues in a serious and reasonable fashion. >> >> The fact that there are other FOSS implementations for TrueCrypt (most >> notably tc-play (https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play) minimizes the need >> to resolve these issues with the upstream, which is why Fedora stopped >> attempting to do so quite some years ago. >> >> ~tom >> >> == >> Fedora Project >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
