Considering the whole reason that he released this stuff was to inform the public, it seems a bit at odds with that purpose to be holding some back as a deterrent. Pragmatism over idealism if so.
And at a certain point, I would think they would just make the decision to whack him and consequences be damned (hence the fleeing to another country).
Source availability is a necessary but NOT sufficient
Is the "freely distribute" bit the specific part that makes it not FLOSS? Everyone seems reticent to actually point to the verbiage in question, which is a large part of why we've been going back and forth on this for so long now.
I'm not trying to say that it's controversial, I just find it weird that a license that seems to me pretty clearly in the spirit of open source is not recognized as such because of clauses that make it "more" free (from the end user's point of view).
First, presuming that a commercial project would be closed-source, who would trust a closed-source encryption product? Even Corporate America is not that stooooopid.
I suppose now we're wandering into fiddly terminology territory here...my point is that saying "TC is NOT a FOSS project, never was." without any further qualifications seems, if not outright wrong, pretty misleading (we do like to argue technical correctness around here). We're saying it's Free Software but not necessarily Open Software at this point, yes? If FS is a stricter subset of OS, it would seem to be that we've proved that TC *is* in fact FOSS, then.
Looking at the Wikipedia article reference for the most-relevant-looking statement from my previous post, all I found was the president of OSI saying "TC license is bad! Bad bad!!" without actually giving any details. I really expected more from that article. And since Google cache doesn't seem to have a link to the old TC license page, I'm having a bit of a hard time referring to the license itself. More research digs up verbiage that ambiguously states that TrueCrypt (the binaries? the source? both?) must also be distributed "freely" (as in free of charge I believe).
It has been explicitly stated* before that open-source software does not necessarily have to be free as in beer. So if costed distribution is fine, without-cost distribution must be, too. The TCL *limiting* distribution to without-cost is the issue? As mentioned before, the Free Software core tenets don't seem to have a problem with this on the face of them. I imagine RMS wouldn't be too broken up about it if forced-without-cost distribution were the norm, either.
I would still call TC FLOSS, but if OSI/FSF don't give their stamp of approval it apparently can't ever be FLOSS.
If the only thing keeping the license from being FLOSS is that it can't readily be absorbed into GPL, that seems like a rather silly distinction. As long as any forks keep the TC licence, it's entirely modifiable and redistributable, yes?
But it hasn't been blessed by RMS so it's not The One True Open Source(tm).
To make it more obviously an NSL-motivated announcement. Cf. that one guy who said there will always be somebody on the Internet that takes your facetiousness seriously.
You can use the key residing on the encrypted partition to decrypt said partition? I'm very confused. Unless the key is at a fixed offset or something...
If everything is encrypted until you log in, how can you boot? Does the late-stage bootloader decrypt system files? In which case I would think that encrypting the system drive itself (as a whole) is rather pointless as the key must be somewhere readily accessible...or, y'know, just boot the thing then dump it at the login screen since it's supposed to be automatic. Or do you have a BIOS password? IIRC then you just pull the cel battery.
There's a strong chance that this is all implemented in an actually secure way and I just don't understand it, but that seems dubious from where I'm standing.
Seriously, you are going to tell the pilot: "ok you have to spend ALL of your fuel before you land...because if you don't it will burn all of your skin...that is, if you are lucky not to catch fire"
This was a non-issue because the fuel supply only lasted for 7.5 minutes. At that rate, you only got a few attack passes before you ran out of fuel anyway (and good luck hitting the target with your cannon and not your face). Which is not to say that the plane didn't like to explode and catch fire, which it apparently did.
At least you're not falling into the "it was really expensive therefore it was an abject failure" argument as much as I initially thought you were.
Well to be fair, Firefox seems to be headed in the same direction (I've switched to Pale Moon)--taking away end user abilities in addition to emulating Chrome's interface.
And Opera is now all Chromified, too.
So I guess just Internet browsing in general is going down the shitter.
Not that a single fuck should have been given even if he rented Midget Transexual Extreme BDSM Gangbang IV every other day. It's ad hominem and completely irrelevant what he watches in his spare time.
Yeah, as I was submitting it I wondered whether that phrasing was going to come back to bite me. I only meant that it's on the continuum of (easy <--> hard), not to make any comment about where on the scale it fell.
I was in the group the (state?) Republicans were trying to keep from voting (college students) recently, so yeah. When you have to block a major chunk of the population from the voting booth to have a chance at winning, that should be a flag that there's something fundamentally wrong with your platform...
Heh, fair point. I would think that Discordianism does impose certain flexible spaces within which you can do whatever you want, though. I'm just starting the 3rd book of Illuminatus! at the moment, actually.
And obviously trying to make any firm statements about Discordianism to begin with is folly...
So you can't eat animals because they're good...or bitter plants because they're bad...so sweet or nondescript-tasting plants are neutral and the only okay thing to eat. Huh.
my time with the monk (about six months, a good many years ago, during which time I was more concerned with not dying than with deep religious exploration)
Slashdot Mirror
Let us know how you feel when they get the 2nd Amendment repealed and it turns out they were actually right. Who's laughing now, funny man.
Considering the whole reason that he released this stuff was to inform the public, it seems a bit at odds with that purpose to be holding some back as a deterrent. Pragmatism over idealism if so.
And at a certain point, I would think they would just make the decision to whack him and consequences be damned (hence the fleeing to another country).
Thank you! Finally a concrete explanation. If true, that does sound pretty sucky.
You got a link to that? (TC license)
And we just got done talking about how the FSF and OSI define FOSS and now you're giving me a link to the Debian guidelines? Really?
mostly because of usage restrictions
Source availability is a necessary but NOT sufficient
Is the "freely distribute" bit the specific part that makes it not FLOSS? Everyone seems reticent to actually point to the verbiage in question, which is a large part of why we've been going back and forth on this for so long now.
I'm not trying to say that it's controversial, I just find it weird that a license that seems to me pretty clearly in the spirit of open source is not recognized as such because of clauses that make it "more" free (from the end user's point of view).
First, presuming that a commercial project would be closed-source, who would trust a closed-source encryption product? Even Corporate America is not that stooooopid.
Anyone currently using BitLocker?
Sometimes there are very simples reasons behind the things we don't want to hear.
Such as? "The developer was just making a joke"?
I suppose now we're wandering into fiddly terminology territory here...my point is that saying "TC is NOT a FOSS project, never was." without any further qualifications seems, if not outright wrong, pretty misleading (we do like to argue technical correctness around here). We're saying it's Free Software but not necessarily Open Software at this point, yes? If FS is a stricter subset of OS, it would seem to be that we've proved that TC *is* in fact FOSS, then.
Looking at the Wikipedia article reference for the most-relevant-looking statement from my previous post, all I found was the president of OSI saying "TC license is bad! Bad bad!!" without actually giving any details. I really expected more from that article. And since Google cache doesn't seem to have a link to the old TC license page, I'm having a bit of a hard time referring to the license itself. More research digs up verbiage that ambiguously states that TrueCrypt (the binaries? the source? both?) must also be distributed "freely" (as in free of charge I believe).
It has been explicitly stated* before that open-source software does not necessarily have to be free as in beer. So if costed distribution is fine, without-cost distribution must be, too. The TCL *limiting* distribution to without-cost is the issue? As mentioned before, the Free Software core tenets don't seem to have a problem with this on the face of them. I imagine RMS wouldn't be too broken up about it if forced-without-cost distribution were the norm, either.
I would still call TC FLOSS, but if OSI/FSF don't give their stamp of approval it apparently can't ever be FLOSS.
* by /. people
If the only thing keeping the license from being FLOSS is that it can't readily be absorbed into GPL, that seems like a rather silly distinction. As long as any forks keep the TC licence, it's entirely modifiable and redistributable, yes?
But it hasn't been blessed by RMS so it's not The One True Open Source(tm).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
I can't help but notice that those 4 bullet points don't say anything about being able to relicense the balls off of it whenever you feel like it.
If you have an old copy of the installer and can dig up the SHA somewhere, it doesn't seem like a problem.
From a hardware component specifically designed to make extracting the key from the chip impossible, yes.
To make it more obviously an NSL-motivated announcement. Cf. that one guy who said there will always be somebody on the Internet that takes your facetiousness seriously.
It's a hell of a lot closer to FLOSS than BitLocker.
FUD
You can use the key residing on the encrypted partition to decrypt said partition? I'm very confused. Unless the key is at a fixed offset or something...
If everything is encrypted until you log in, how can you boot? Does the late-stage bootloader decrypt system files? In which case I would think that encrypting the system drive itself (as a whole) is rather pointless as the key must be somewhere readily accessible...or, y'know, just boot the thing then dump it at the login screen since it's supposed to be automatic. Or do you have a BIOS password? IIRC then you just pull the cel battery.
There's a strong chance that this is all implemented in an actually secure way and I just don't understand it, but that seems dubious from where I'm standing.
Seriously, you are going to tell the pilot: "ok you have to spend ALL of your fuel before you land...because if you don't it will burn all of your skin...that is, if you are lucky not to catch fire"
This was a non-issue because the fuel supply only lasted for 7.5 minutes. At that rate, you only got a few attack passes before you ran out of fuel anyway (and good luck hitting the target with your cannon and not your face). Which is not to say that the plane didn't like to explode and catch fire, which it apparently did.
At least you're not falling into the "it was really expensive therefore it was an abject failure" argument as much as I initially thought you were.
Well to be fair, Firefox seems to be headed in the same direction (I've switched to Pale Moon)--taking away end user abilities in addition to emulating Chrome's interface.
And Opera is now all Chromified, too.
So I guess just Internet browsing in general is going down the shitter.
*Disable on <URL>
(and technically you can do it in one click if you hold and drag to the menu option)
Just go to the site, Adblock button, Disable on . Boom. Two whole clicks.
But let's just keep bitching about solved problems to prove we have no idea what we're talking about.
by today's legal standards
It sounds like he was explicitly referring to the climate in which they originally came out.
Not that a single fuck should have been given even if he rented Midget Transexual Extreme BDSM Gangbang IV every other day. It's ad hominem and completely irrelevant what he watches in his spare time.
Yeah, as I was submitting it I wondered whether that phrasing was going to come back to bite me. I only meant that it's on the continuum of (easy <--> hard), not to make any comment about where on the scale it fell.
I was in the group the (state?) Republicans were trying to keep from voting (college students) recently, so yeah. When you have to block a major chunk of the population from the voting booth to have a chance at winning, that should be a flag that there's something fundamentally wrong with your platform...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Heh, fair point. I would think that Discordianism does impose certain flexible spaces within which you can do whatever you want, though. I'm just starting the 3rd book of Illuminatus! at the moment, actually.
And obviously trying to make any firm statements about Discordianism to begin with is folly...
So you can't eat animals because they're good...or bitter plants because they're bad...so sweet or nondescript-tasting plants are neutral and the only okay thing to eat. Huh.
my time with the monk (about six months, a good many years ago, during which time I was more concerned with not dying than with deep religious exploration)
Sounds like an interesting story.