[geekcrypt] Re: Crypto export law in US
- From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geekcrypt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:22:35 -0400
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Niklas Lemcke - 林樂寬 <compul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Exactly 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?
>
> --
> 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.
>
I think there is strong consensus that we must replace *all* of the code
covered by the TrueCrypt 3.0 license, and ship a purely FOSS version.
Which license is TBD. I like MIT, but we may have to borrow a lot of GPL
code, so likely as not we'll wind up with one of the GPL licenses.
However, I feel *very* strongly that the first priority should be shipping
a slightly updated tool with our rebranding, to start people transitioning
from TrueCrypt to CipherShed, rather than having them switch to BitLocker.
Every day we delay, we lose more users!
It's really important to me to be doing stuff that makes a difference. I
measure that like a geek: now much difference per person times number of
people. To make a real dent in the Universe, we need to get our rebranded
version out there ASAP, and that means shipping at least 1 version under
the TrueCrypt 3.0 license.
Bill
Other related posts:
