http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/8405/ 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.

[259 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #8405


]]> en-us Mon, 12 May 2008 07:06:29 +0000 Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:37:08 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/8405/ Mon, 12 May 2008 08:40:35 +0000 Mon, 12 May 2008 08:51:28 +0000 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!!!]]> Mon, 12 May 2008 09:01:22 +0000
Dupe]]> Mon, 12 May 2008 09:20:25 +0000 Mon, 12 May 2008 10:12:12 +0000
"TrueCrypt Collective License".

I guess its not FSF or OSI approved.

So I vote no.]]> Mon, 12 May 2008 13:15:35 +0000
But, why should all our licensing decisions require approval from OSI for FSF? They kinda slow us down.. ]]> Mon, 12 May 2008 13:43:11 +0000 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:10:19 +0000 Mon, 12 May 2008 19:35:26 +0000 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.]]> Mon, 12 May 2008 21:10:18 +0000 Tue, 13 May 2008 04:40:02 +0000 Tue, 13 May 2008 04:45:27 +0000
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?]]> Thu, 15 May 2008 02:25:27 +0000 Thu, 15 May 2008 15:40:09 +0000 >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.]]> Thu, 15 May 2008 18:23:56 +0000 Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:32 +0000
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.]]> Fri, 16 May 2008 20:53:38 +0000
Let's talk to them.]]> Sat, 17 May 2008 18:39:20 +0000 Mon, 19 May 2008 03:41:23 +0000 Thu, 22 May 2008 08:21:49 +0000
. . . 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.]]> Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:26:08 +0000 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.]]> Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:46:55 +0000
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]]> Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:37:08 +0000