[geekcrypt] Re: Legal assistance for TrueCrypt fork

  • From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: info@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:59:56 -0400

One more issue that would help the team feel better:

Do any of us open ourselves to personal liability in the US as unpaid FOSS
developers if we ship a fork of TrueCrypt 7.1a that conforms to the
TrueCypt 3.0 license terms?  The license requires rebranding (taking out
their images, using a name not similar to TrueCrypt), and linking to the
old dead site in our GUI (probably the About box).  It's been done twice
under this license: once with RealCrypt and once with VeraCrypt, so I was
planning on seeing what steps they took and making sure we did at least
those.  I am fully aware that civil suits need no real basis, and can be
used to harass people just out of spite, so there never is full
protection.  However, can you see any case where someone might win a
lawsuit against one of the non-paid FOSS devs in court, given that we
attempt in good faith to follow the license terms?

Here's one link to the license:
https://tldrlegal.com/license/truecrypt-license-version-3.0#fulltext

Thanks,
Bill



On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi.  I'm Bill Cox, one of the geeks working to fork TrueCrypt.  I've been
> urged to contact the EFF for a legal opinion on what we need to do to
> comply with the law, at least here in the US.
>
> My understanding is that we don't have to worry about collaborating
> internationally on the source code, at least while members are not from an
> export restricted country.
>
> Here's what I just emailed the geekcrypt list:
>
> "Developers here in the US could simply declare ourselves as a
> non-profit.  Here in NC, no notifications are even required to any
> government entity.  Once we've made that declaration, I could notify BIS
> whenever the main organization hosted in another country is ready to have a
> release.  This looks simple enough to me.  Apparently, no other action is
> required on our part here in the US."
>
> Is my understanding of this issue accurate enough?  Are there other issues
> we need to worry about?  I am personally lobbying for keeping this a
> no-income non-profit, as things get more complicated when money is involved.
>
> Thanks!
> Bill
>

Other related posts: