[ciphershed] Re: TrueCrypt Author Claims That Forking Is Impossible http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/06/19/145219/truecrypt-author-claims-that-forking-is-impossible
- From: "Jason Pyeron" <jpyeron@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:05:54 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alain Forget
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:53
> To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Thanks Stephen and Jason, this answers my question perfectly.
>
> However, as Stephen asked and Jason asserted, I'd like to
> confirm this with the rest of the community to make sure
> we're all on the same page: Are we using TC only as a
> reference, but will be essentially re-writing the whole
> thing? Or are we essentially going to continue using,
> supporting, and improving TC's 7.1a code?
Until the greater goal is accomplished, use & support.
>
> Given that we're re-branding TC 7.1a as CipherShed, it seemed
> to me like we're doing the latter, but perhaps I'm missing
> part of the grander plan?
I am here because I understood, that with patience (>1 year), it was the former
with the latter as the short term (<1 year)
My personal goals are as follows
(//www.freelists.org/post/ciphershed/Introduction-Jason-Pyeron):
0. deterministic / automated build of TC 7.1a
1. Get it under a good license (BSD, Apache, etc) - CS 8.0
2. UEFI boot support
3. limited Soft reboot support
4. enterprise policy / credential server (network password server) support
5. then on to mobile...
Is this in line with the group? Is it close enough?
>
> Alain
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Pyeron
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:42
> To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ciphershed] Re: TrueCrypt Author Claims That
> Forking Is Impossible
> http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/06/19/145219/truecrypt-author-
> claims-that-forking-is-impossible
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alain Forget
> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:33
> >
> > Could anyone please enlighten me as to what possible reason
> > this original TrueCrypt developer feels a fork would be impossible?
>
> His definition of fork is to "re-use" the code and not
> "re-write" the code.
>
> Best analyis so far, in my opinion:
> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5300647&cid=47272777
>
> Occam's Razor by bhoar (1226184) writes: on Thursday June 19,
> 2014 @11:34AM
> (#47272777)
>
> 1. Evidence seems to point that the main developer is in
> Europe. So, an NSA NSL
> doesn't seem (to me) to be a likely factor.
>
> 2. Evidence points to the history of the code perhaps being
> legally murky. But
> from what I recall of the forum discussion nearly a decade
> ago, most of the murk
> wasn't due to the code origins, which appeared to be on the
> up and up, but due
> to the legal threats/actions of a company that thought it
> could prevent a fork
> from *before* buying code/hiring the developer. That's IIRC,
> of course, I've
> seen reporting all over the map on this issue. Also,
> supposition: there may have
> also been verbal promises between the dev(s) and outside
> entities about what
> might trigger more legal issues.
>
> 3. Evidence points to English being the main developer's
> second language, so the
> conspiracy theories base on awkward sentence construction are
> probably just
> that, theories.
>
> 4. Evidence (now gone, due to the tc forums being removed)
> also seems to point
> to the main developer having strong feelings about control
> over the main code
> line and trademarks for a long time. Some of this seemed
> rational (wanting to
> block a plethora of backdoored versions being deployed) but
> some of this seemed
> personal. Most devs have been there, some have matured and
> learned to let it go.
> Conclusion: the simplest explanation, to me, is that the main
> dev wants to the
> code dead and buried so that he is entirely free of any
> future legal, ethical or
> emotional consequences of it continuing.
>
>
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure VeraCrypt
> > is a fork,
>
> With bad legal licensing issues at first glance.
>
> > and we are working on a fork, so...either I'm
>
> And we plan on a re-write to allow for a license change, as
> such we are using
> the original code as a "reference"
>
> > missing some crucial point, am taking crazy pills, or that
> > original TrueCrypt developer has a very questionable
> > definition of "impossible".
>
> I certainlly agree the word impossible is not supported by
> the content of the
> message exchange, but there are likely other details (personal, legal,
> linguistic, etc) that will have bearing on the definition of
> the word impossible
> in that context.
>
> >
> > Alain
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Pyeron
> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:23
> > To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ciphershed] TrueCrypt Author Claims That Forking Is
> > Impossible
> > http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/06/19/145219/truecrypt-author-
> > claims-that-forking-is-impossible
> >
> > From slashdot:
> >
> > http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/06/19/145219/truecrypt-author-
> > claims-that-forkin
> > g-is-impossible
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/RS0f8gwn
> >
> > On a request from Matthew Green to fork the TrueCrypt code,
> > the author answers
> > that this is impossible. He says that this might be no good
> > idea, because the
> > code needs a rewrite, but he allows to use the existing code
> > as a reference. "I
> > am sorry, but I think what you're asking for here is
> > impossible. I don't feel
> > that forking TrueCrypt would be a good idea, a complete
> > rewrite was something we
> > wanted to do for a while. I believe that starting from
> > scratch wouldn't require
> > much more work than actually learning and understanding all
> > of truecrypts
> > current codebase. I have no problem with the source code
> being used as
> > reference."
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- -
- Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us -
- Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 -
- +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 -
- -
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00.
Other related posts:
