Truecrypt itself actually wasn't licensed under an OSI/FSF approved
license, was it? I recall reading it had some strange clauses in there
that they never elaborated upon that made it unsuitable for packaging.
What are the critical truecrypt features people actually want, that made
it special? Trivial symmetric file encryption? That could be hacked
together pretty simply. Or something more esoteric? Deniable volumes?
Detachable headers? Keyfiles?
On 03/01/15 10:18, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Fri, 2015-01-02 at 18:31 -0500, grarpamp wrote:
After TrueCrypt, many tens of proposed continuations,
and even brand new competing projects appeared, such as:
https://www.gostcrypt.org/
Have any of those many projects gained following, review,
support, opensource license, and ongoing development
work such that they can now be considered the in fact
TrueCrypt successor / new independant solution?
The thing that really irks me the most about TrueCrypt being withdrawn
was that it was the only true multi-platform (GNU/Linux and Windows at
least, was there a Mac OS X version?) full-disk encryption software
available under a free software license. Every other full disk
encryption solution out there is either proprietary, only available for
one operating system, or both.
To me, any true successor to TrueCrypt will be available under GPLv3
(not sure I like the idea of someone forking a BSD/MIT licensed clone
and then not sharing the source, aka the "BSD/MIT Tuck And Run"), and
for at least GNU/Linux and Windows (ideally Mac OS X as well). While I
never really needed something like TrueCrypt while it was maintained,
that doesn't mean I won't in the future, and I know there are others who
need TrueCrypt (including multi-platform support).
