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

Re: licence for Truecrypt

dtufs <dtufs@yahoo.com>
> I think it is equally unhelpful to post personal
> remarks, such as: "The license shows many signs of
> being written by someone with just enough knowledge to
> be legally dangerous."

That's true, but you don't get to stake the moral high
ground *after* replying at the same level.

> --- MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > this licence seems uncontroversially non-free due
> > to forbidding private use.
> You are wrong. Read the section 3.a. It permits you to
> not release source code of your work derived from
> Truecrypt, provided that you don't distribute the
> derived work (that's 'private use'). 

I assume you mean III.3.a as there is no 3.a.

No, by 'private use' I mean use which is private, as in
not public, not necessarily by a single person.

> So the TrueCrypt License obviously is free and nobody
> has presented any facts that would prove the contrary.

It's not at all obvious.  Maybe it isn't proved to the contrary, but
that's a side effect of being unclear.

In my opinion, software under this licence has free redistribution (DFSG
1), permits derived works (DFSG 3), doesn't discriminate against people
(DFSG 5), is not specific to debian (DFSG 8) and doesn't contaminate
other software (DFSG 9); but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to enforce a super-trademark in
III.1.a-c, MIGHT include source code (DFSG 2), MIGHT discriminate against
private use (DFSG 6) with the public availability requirement of III.1.d,
MIGHT discriminate against commerce (DFSG 6) with the AS THIS PRODUCT
IS FREE in IV.1, MIGHT allow distribution of licence (DFSG 7) but III.1
and V confused me; and III.1.e seems to make it incompatible with many
popular licences too (not a DFSG question, but a PITA worth noting).

In summary: this licence looks non-free but it's unclear.

[Claim that V.2 is equal to GPL s5]
> > The GPL does not cover use, while Truecrypt's
> > licence does.
> You are wrong. GPL covers the use as well. For
> instance:
> Section 8: "8. If the distribution and/or use of the
> Program is restricted..."

The quoted GPL section 5 does not cover use, so is not equal to a
Truecrypt Licence section covering use.  Please do not cut context to
make statements look wrong.

Please, try not to start every other paragraph with "You are wrong."

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

Reply to: