Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] TrueCrypt Alternatives?

Greg greg at kinostudios.com
Sun Oct 5 15:44:45 PDT 2014


Dear Rich,

On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
> I'm not misunderstanding it.  I didn't bother to read it

Those two statements seem to be in conflict to me, as you are next making assumptions about what sorts of limits it puts on peer review. You use the words "legally constrain the reviewers" but neglect to mention how or why. That is not unimportant. It would be like me saying that "America is legally constraining me" but neglecting to mention that they are legally constraining me from running somebody over with a car.

> In or out of the pool.  You wanna be closed source?  Go for it.  But please,
> stop disengenously pretending to be open source when you're clearly not.

So far the only disingenuous language has been coming from you.

We have been explicit in stating that we are not open source [1,2], and yet you are accusing us of doing so.

That is libel and/or slander.

Please stop.

Kind regards,
Greg Slepak


[1] https://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2013/09/espionage-3-now-open-source-for-professionals/ (we preserved the URL to prevent broken internet links, but changed the title and added edits in bold)
[2] https://www.espionageapp.com (read the section on "source code available")

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.


> This is dragging out, so I'm going to try to be brief.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:07:36PM -0700, Greg wrote:
>> You may also be misunderstanding our NDA.
> 
> I'm not misunderstanding it.  I didn't bother to read it, because the
> mere fact that it exists is the problem.  People who are serious about
> open source and peer review of code do not limit peer review, nor attempt
> to legally constrain the reviewers, nor try to cherry-pick the reviewers
> based on perceived expertise or personal qualities.
> 
> In or out of the pool.  You wanna be closed source?  Go for it.  But please,
> stop disengenously pretending to be open source when you're clearly not.
> 
> ---rsk
> 
> p.s.  In re: "[...] we want to do our best to keep the software in the
> hands of honest, trustworthy folks [...]" -- you've got to be kidding.
> I *hope* you're kidding.
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20141005/7f6ebe1f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list