Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
> > I (lufs-cryptofs maintainer) support it! lufs-cryptofs is nice but needs
> > to be audited and I do not like the code, especially because LUFS is
> > dead upstream. encfs seems to be much better, and I want to get rid of
> > CFS (that I currently use) RSN.
> PS: I see trouble coming. The package uses openssl but also the fuse
> library which is licensed under the GPL (without the OpenSSL remark). So
> the only way around this is:
> - replace openssl with gcrypt or such
> - add an exception to the GPL license of fuse (permission to link with
Permission granted :)
Do I need to put it in some magic licence file in future releases?