|
Description
TrueCrypt is a high standard secure method of storing data supporting many high level encryption levels. http://www.truecrypt.org/screenshots.php
It should be implemented as encrypting an entire partition is not very practical these days. Only some data are important and the others are just data. I use TrueCrypt and it is extremely fast though it encrypts files on the fly. No latency what so ever.
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
steve196 wrote on the 12 May 08 at 08:40
| |
What is the advantage compared with dm-crypt?
|
|
ravindranathakila wrote on the 12 May 08 at 08:51
| |
Ease of use, the levels of encryption against vulnerabilities. Ability to use files as hard disks. Platform independence of these files. On the fly encryption. Clipboard safety.
|
|
iampriteshdesai wrote on the 12 May 08 at 09:01
|
No DONT DO THAT!!!
Hell Truecrypt is harder than the terminal to use. Only geeks can use it. It is hard.I hate truecrypt. Only National defence academy should use it!!!
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 12 May 08 at 13:15
|
TrueCrypt uses its own vanity license.
"TrueCrypt Collective License".
I guess its not FSF or OSI approved.
So I vote no.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 12 May 08 at 13:43
|
With that being said, maybe not by default.
But, why should all our licensing decisions require approval from OSI for FSF? They kinda slow us down..
|
|
steve196 wrote on the 12 May 08 at 14:10
| |
I think, this idea should be changed into "better documentation for dm-crypt" since dm-crypt is already in by default and all the "advantages" of truecrypt are things that, in reality, dm-crypt can do too, only people do not know that.
|
|
Asa.Ayers wrote on the 12 May 08 at 19:35
| |
I'm voting this down because of the license. I like truecrypt and I use it, but if its going to be in Ubuntu they need to change the license.
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 12 May 08 at 21:10
|
Auzy,
OSI defines the "open source definition" and the FSF defines the "free software definition".
They're the authority on free open source software.
Using OSI-approved and FSF-approved licenses ensures that our OS is really free and open.
Else everyone can come with their custom licenses and talk about being free and open, when they're really not.
Asa.Ayers, indeed. Agree.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 13 May 08 at 04:40
| |
yeah Eldmannen, but who says their license wont be approved.. Maybe we should ask them to submit the license to see
|
|
ravindranathakila wrote on the 13 May 08 at 04:45
| |
TrueCrypt is very easy to use. Just "truecrypt" in command line will launch the GUI. License they might agree to change. We have to ask and see first. My only argument is that it is an industry standard software. I have been using many of these tools since years. Magic Folders, Folder Lock etc. This is the best by far. And OS independence is good too. USB support is another added feature. It is a real requirement these days to have a portable set of important data on USBs of our workplaces. Therefore this should be considered. Maybe a change of license from their side would be welcome...
|
|
HDave wrote on the 15 May 08 at 02:25
|
I mount several Truecrypt volumes from both Windows and Ubuntu. The program is robust, secure, and extremely simple to use.
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't think dm-crypt has a nice GUI, can be mounted from windows, supports plausible deniability, support keyfiles, nor has as many cipher options.
What do we have to do to get the FSF to approve their license?
|
|
malathion wrote on the 15 May 08 at 15:40
| |
Burying this because TrueCrypt is not free software.
|
|
Lukehasnoname wrote on the 15 May 08 at 18:23
|
>>malathion wrote on the 15 May 08 at 15:40
>>Burying this because TrueCrypt is not free software.
Actually, it is, as far s I can tell. Taking the time to read the license:
---It has the "share and share alike" provision, similar to GPL (Source code distribution)
---The mentions of Intellectual Property are solely intended to protect the name "Truecrypt"
---Ubuntu is allowed to use Truecrypt's name as stated in Section III.2
---Distributors must grant indemnity to users of the software
Most of the bloat in the license is protection of the "Truecrypt" name and 'No liability' stuff.
Would it be more friendly if they had a standard license?
Yes.
Is it evil or wrong that they have a custom license?
No.
|
|
malathion wrote on the 16 May 08 at 01:07
| |
Hmm, looks like they have indeed modified the license greatly (which I admit I haven't looked at in a long time). Seems OK to me. Too bad I can't change my vote, but it looks like this is getting enough ups as it is.
|
|
tgape wrote on the 16 May 08 at 20:53
|
Ok, I've read the TrueCrypt License version 2.4. That license is ridiculous. I suspect it was written by someone who has read a lot of license documents, but has not otherwise studied law recently to a significant degree. Very noticeable is the apparent belief that one needs to explicitly state that a license to copy is not a license to use or abuse a trademark...
For those curious what I'm talking about: in section II, it expressly forbids incorporating TrueCrypt in another product. Then, in section III.1, it lists six different requirements, a third of which Ubuntu cannot meet, and at least a third of which would actually be detrimental to the TrueCrypt product thus incorporated. In section III.2, it specifically exempts distributions from the two thirds of the section III.1 requirements which are problematic.
While it appears that Ubuntu would be able to distribute this package without issue, given this license, I personally would not want to risk it. It just feels to me like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm just a programmer who has reviewed a lot of court cases, and read a lot of licenses.
|
|
FranciscoPadillaGarcia wrote on the 17 May 08 at 18:39
|
I think TrueCrypt guys didn't want to use the GNU license because they wanted their product to be used by everyone --including proprietary companies--. So, what they can do is release it under the GNU Lesser Public License.
Let's talk to them.
|
|
massond wrote on the 19 May 08 at 03:41
| |
There already is encryption in Ubuntu.
|
|
ravindranathakila wrote on the 22 May 08 at 08:21
| |
massond having encryption already does not mean we have portable files acting as hard disks which are encrypted! Never the same. TrueCrypts files can be encrypted, can be mounted on many os's etc. It is also clipboard safe. Mounting requires password. Extremely secure!
|
|
Dorkus Prime wrote on the 9 Jun 08 at 15:26
|
re: There already is encryption in Ubuntu.
. . . and there was already an OS on my computer before I installed Ubuntu.
Brainstorm isn't about bowing to the status-quo, but seeking the best options possible. If you mean to say that the current encryption software is somehow better, though, that's an entirely different argument.
Having used both dm-crypt and TrueCrypt, I'm voting up . . . with the hope that they'd be willing to adjust their license.
|
|
steve196 wrote on the 9 Jun 08 at 17:46
|
>massond having encryption already does not mean we have portable files acting as hard disks which are encrypted! Never the same. TrueCrypts files can be encrypted, can be mounted on many os's etc. It is also clipboard safe. Mounting requires password. Extremely secure!
dm-crypt has ALL of that including being mounted under other OS. If that are the reasons to add truecrypt, then there are no reasons at all.
|
 saivann (Moderator) wrote on the 9 Jul 08 at 17:37
|
I marked this idea as a duplicate of idea 1558 since we should start by including truecrypt to repositories.
Considering the current license, it *looks* legally possible to redistribute truecrypt so this package might be accepted in restricted repositories.
The first step to have a package included in ubuntu is to open a bug report in bugs.launchpad.net. Truecrypt bug report is already opened and being discussed.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/109701
|
Post your comment
|
