Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> writes: >(from 2008): >http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000273.html >http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000276.html > >[...] > >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.
Thanks so much for the history, Tom; that thread is hugely educational. The question for OSI, I think, is not just whether or not to spend time on the license, but (if trying to address license issues doesn't work out) do we ask them to stop describing it as "open source" if they're not willing to license it under an open source license? I'm not saying for sure that it is or isn't open source -- the point of this thread is to gather information -- but the history you've provided makes it clear there are areas of concern beyond even what I noticed when I glanced over the license. -Karl _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss