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" <tcall...@redhat.com> 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 > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss