On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 15:54 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:28 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth > <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If I remember correctly it's not that TrueCrypt is non-free, but that > >> the license is incompatible with Fedora and upstream was not willing > >> to budge on that so it was re-branded instead. > > > > The TrueCrypt License is, in fact, non-free for several reasons: > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000276.html > > That's being rather pedantic... Yes it's considered non-free because > of the screwy licensing agreement, however, the software is free to > download and use, it is open source. > > Actually your link supports my last statement quite nicely. Um. What? How can the software be open source if the license is not? The license is what determines the status of the software. At the time of that mail there were very definitely issues in the TC license which prevented it from being Free or Open Source under the FSF or OSI definitions. I believe the license has been changed since then, though, and I don't know if it's been re-evaluated. Spot is pretty familiar with the case, so he might be able to help out. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
