This is hardly the last word, but Steve Gibson mentioned in his "Security Now" podcast that his reading of the license was that TrueCrypt code merely needed acknowledgement of the source of that code as being from TrueCrypt.
If nothing else that should simplify the transition - use the original code for V0.1 then work on replacing it for later versions.
As a practical matter however it is up to the Copyright holder to enforce their copyright (it is a civil matter, not criminal). Since the developers appear to value their anonymity highly, it would seem very doubtful that anything less than some really blatant violation (e.g. making it Commercial software and selling it) would be a problem.
This is certainly not a total "green light", but it is certainly worth checking.
Mike On 06/06/2014 06:11 AM, Niklas Lemcke - 林樂寬 wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:58:11 -0400 Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:The TrueCrypt author simply wanted to make it plain that we do not have permission to "upgrade" his license to a GPL license, for example. That's too bad, because it's save us a ton of work! BillExactly that is what I'm having problems with. Should the effort keep the weirdo TC licens on a long term, or should modifying parts of the code so that we can use GPL or BSD licenses be part of the long-term goal?
-- Hypocrite: (noun) Republican who collects Social Security or Medicare!
