lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <139e97ca87002f5402f63d9bd06673e1@cime.net>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 14:52:35 -0700
From: "CIURANA EUGENE (pr3d4t0r - Full Disclosure)" <fulldisclosure@...e.net>
To: <fulldisclosure@...lists.org>
Subject: Re: [FD] Full disk encryption for OS X alternative to TrueCrypt

 

On 2014-05-29 14:39, Jeffrey Walton wrote: 

> GPL can be a toxic
license. Its great if you're OK with being
> boxed-in, but its too
encumbered to do anything outside of Stallman's
> vision. Apache, Boost
and {2|3}-clause BSD license will likely be more
> useful for those who
want to reuse code or components.
> 
> Build the code in C/C++ so its
portable and available everywhere.
> Package it as a library. Build the
loader using platform
> specific/native APIs. Build the front-end using
the platform specific
> frameworks. For example, use Cocoa and Objective
C on Mac OS X, use Qt
> on Linux, etc.
> 
> I've built multi-platofrm
libraries using C/C++ for years. They are
> write once, run everywhere.
The libraries run on Windows, Linux, OS X,
> Android and iOS. Windows
Phone and Windows RT kind of sucks, though.

Thanks Jeff! 

I was
thinking along those lines, except that I want to dispense with C++ and
keep the code in C altogether. Better portability than with C++, and
fewer headaches for the developers who'll audit/contribute to the code.


The only reason I was considering GPLv2 was for its toxicity... it may
deter third-parties from hijacking the code into other applications. In
the normal course of business all my open source stuff is done under BSD
or Apache. I think I'll continue with either of those (thinking that BSD
might be the best). 

Layering it as a library + drivers was also my
general idea (hence looking into how Fuse works). Thanks very much for
the advise; you've confirmed some 5,000' level assumptions I'd made, and
showed me a better path when it comes to licensing. 

Cheers! 

pr3d 

_______________________________________________
Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure
Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ