[ciphershed] Re: Rebranding
- From: Stephen R Guglielmo <srguglielmo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:38:08 -0400
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Dáire Fagan <dairefagan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Should a project continuing TrueCrypt's work not have crypt in its name, and
> in fact as the second word? I believe the name should hint at this project
> being a continuation of what came before but not something so blatant as
> TrueCrypt2 or TwoCrypt etc, as this project is independent after all.
> OpenCrypt is a nice reference to FOSS but Open is not a good word to use
> with encryption which is meant to keep data locked up tight and safe.
>
> How about SureCrypt? Aesthetically the words look similar, containing three
> of the four same letters. Four letter words are solid and strong, four
> letters, four corners. There is also an affinity between the word true and
> sure, they both relate to certainty. Sure could also be an answer to those
> concerned over the warnings from the TrueCrypt devs that the code may be
> insecure - we're sure it is secure, it's SureCrypt.
>
> I'm dusf on IRC.
>
Dáire,
TrueCrypt's license is very particular about references to the name
"TrueCrypt." There was a post in the recent past on in the old mailing
list that suggested we stay away from *crypt for ambiguity and
potential legal reasons. Just to err on the side of caution.
I, for one, am pretty set on CipherShed. I'm a fan of the name, and
the project has been going ahead with it thus far.
Other related posts:
