> Short term goal is getting a rebranded version out. Then the issues fixed > that the Audit pointed out. > Long term goal is replacing the code parts that have license-issues and > release it under a new license (gpl, mit, bsd -- not sure yet). I agree with Niklas' plan. I think those are the most pressing things, since we could get legally blocked until that long-term plan is complete (which we all hope won't be too "long", but I suspect it will, since TrueCrypt is no simple beast). Only after those are done should we start considering which items on our wish list to implement/tackle. Alain -----Original Message----- From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Niklas Lemcke - ??? Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 13:50 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 On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:05:54 -0400 "Jason Pyeron" <jpyeron@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----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? Short term goal is getting a rebranded version out. Then the issues fixed that the Audit pointed out. Long term goal is replacing the code parts that have license-issues and release it under a new license (gpl, mit, bsd -- not sure yet). About the mentioned features, some of them are in discussion, some are most likely going to be implemented, others don't have a consensus yet (I believe) Niklas > > > > > 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. > > -- Niklas At the time of writing, no warrants have ever been served to me, Niklas Lemcke, nor am I under any personal legal compulsion concerning the CipherShed project. I do not know of any searches or seizures of my assets.