Linked by Julian Djamil Fagir on Thu 14th Feb 2013 22:23 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 552734
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Truecrypt is open source, not closed at all.
by Soulbender on Sat 16th Feb 2013 10:46
in reply to "Truecrypt is open source, not closed at all."
TrueCrypt is and always has been open source.
Just because the source is downloadable doesn't make it open source. It's quite possible that the truecrypt license is not compatible with Dragonfly BSD's goal and policies.
A cursory glance indicates that the license is such that it could not be included as part of any BSD.
RE[2]: Truecrypt is open source, not closed at all.
by DaveK on Sun 17th Feb 2013 04:30
in reply to "RE: Truecrypt is open source, not closed at all."
"TrueCrypt is and always has been open source.
Just because the source is downloadable doesn't make it open source. It's quite possible that the truecrypt license is not compatible with Dragonfly BSD's goal and policies.
A cursory glance indicates that the license is such that it could not be included as part of any BSD. "
That's not what "closed source" means. If the article wanted to distinguish between free software and open source, it should have done so, but closed source is unquestionably the wrong one of the three terms to use.





Member since:
2013-02-16
TrueCrypt, a disk encryption tool, though being Closed Source, gained a wide distribution among computers due to its ease of use and cross-platform compatibility. DragonFlyBSD developers decided to write a compatible Open Source implementation.
That was a waste of their time. TrueCrypt is and always has been open source. They should have just downloaded the source from http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads2 same as everyone else. Either the article has mis-described the situation or the devs are idiots.