On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
What are the critical truecrypt features people actually want, that made it special?
Windows + third party + opensource + gui + full disk encryption. I doubt its volumes were portable like ZFS. You could Windows mount iSCSI/SMB/NFS from a VM of FreeBSD+GELI+ZFS. Please stop top posting.
On 03/01/15 10:18, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
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")
This is a bogus argument. If you don't like that someone has copied it, closed it, and gone off and done their own thing with it... make your own copy and continue open development. BSD is about honoring freedom, not about ramming freedom down your throat under threat of suit. World of difference there. Make no mistake, the more freedom a license gives YOU, the more free it is. What you do with the freedoms you are given is up to you... if you choose to jerk people around, no one will care, they'll just ignore and route around you. Though not as free as BSD, take similar CDDL ZFS example... Sun opened it, FreeBSD ported it, Oracle closed it, open and free people ignored Oracle and eventually congregated at open-zfs.org. Both Oracle and open-zfs won. If it were GPL only open-zfs would have. That's not very free.