TrueCrypt, GostCrypt, *Crypt - status?

[Cathal Garvey]

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 The thing that really irks me the most about TrueCrypt being withdrawn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).
>