[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: licence for Truecrypt

dtufs <dtufs@yahoo.com>
> Michael Poole writes:
> > One sign is the frequent use of alternatives [...]
> In reality [...]

No matter who is correct, I think it is unhelpful to imply
that others are not dealing in reality, especially on matters
of opinion.

My reply is abbreviated because this licence seems
uncontroversially non-free due to forbidding private use:
> This might be true. However, it does not affect the
> 'free software status' of the license (it is clearly
> required that "source code of your product or of the
> modified version must be freely and publicly
> available").

> > 2. This product is provided under the terms of this
> license
> >    (agreement). Any use, reproduction, distribution,
> or modification
> >    of this product or any of its parts constitutes
> recipient's
> >    acceptance of this agreement."
> >
> > I don't think V.2 will stick in the US for plain use
> of the software,
> Section V.2 is actually equal to Section 5 of the GPL,
> which says:
> "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program 
> (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your
> acceptance of this License"

The GPL does not cover use, while Truecrypt's licence does.
So, they are not equal.

> The statement that the "license is not clearly unfree"
> is vague and potentially misleading. It actually has
> had negative consequences: The false statement of the
> editor of the Debian news mailing list who wrote at:
> http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/26/ the
> following: "Michael Poole answered that the license
> isn't free at all". You might want to correct him. 

DWN, debian's own tabloid press, has been misreporting
for years, as previously mentioned in
Please tell anyone who doesn't already know that.

Fortunately, it links through to what Michael Poole actually
wrote (and so to my reply), so this error should be obvious.

> [...] My own overall
> analysis of the license concludes that it is actually
> as "free" as GPL (actually even more free than the
> GPL).

Your analysis seems incorrect, as illustrated by an example above.

Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: