Public statement by Paul Le Roux
Paul Le Roux
I do not follow this newsgroup. Having said that the pure speculation here (often stated as fact) is damaging and in some
cases libelous.
The E4M product was developed by me from scratch in Australia in 1997.
Thousands of hours went into its development and testing, to those who believe
that somehow a disk encryption product of this magnitude and scope, and which is stable and reliable can be slapped together
quickly will soon find that their product exhibits strange bugs which result in data loss, crashes, and so on. E4M underwent
exhaustive tests under the Windows hardware compatibility tests and various other stress tests to get it to its final stable
state, this cannot be replicated without a major undertaking, this is the reason why this code is the foundation of so many
popular products in use today, in fact I continue at this very moment to use the E4M product under Microsoft's latest O/S
WinXP (V3 was produced but never released which included support for XP as well as disks up to 16 TB, because I was at the
time developing a more advanced product which offered full disk encryption).
Regarding the controversy surrounding the licensing of E4M code. There are cases where permission has been granted to some
parties to license the code under various commercial terms. There are also cases where various companies and individuals have
used the code illegally because they failed to comply with the original License (even as generous as it is). Certainly no
permission has ever been granted to anyone to produce derived code and distribute it under a more restrictive license such as
the GPL, any such product is not legal, and is simply a work of piracy.
Paul Le Roux.
Carsten Krueger
>Certainly no permission has ever been granted to anyone to produce derived
>code and distribute it under a more restrictive license such as
>the GPL, any such product is not legal, and is simply a work of piracy.
Is Truecrypt 2.0 legal (in your opinion) if it has the original
Truecrypt 1.0 license and has another name e.g. Newcrypt 2.0?
greetings
Carsten
--
http://learn.to/quote - richtig zitieren
http://www.realname-diskussion.info - Realnames sind keine Pflicht
http://oe-faq.de/ - http://www.oe-tools.de.vu/ - OE im Usenet
http://www.spamgourmet.com/ - Emailadresse(n) gegen Spam
Michael Sçheer
>> Certainly no permission has ever been granted to anyone to produce derived
>> code and distribute it under a more restrictive license such as
^^^
>> the GPL, any such product is not legal, and is simply a work of piracy.
>
> Is Truecrypt 2.0 legal (in your opinion) if it has the original
> Truecrypt 1.0 license and has another name e.g. Newcrypt 2.0?
--
[PGP] 0x360F113D(RSA) * 0x53E9615A(DH/DSS) * http://pgp.autechre.de/
Phillip J. Fry
news:cn0Ac.2573$h9....@amsnews05.chello.com...
Is there any reason to believe that this truely is Paul?
Anybody have any old messages from him? Did his older messages comes from
chello.com?
nemo
I have no idea whether it is or isn't really Paul. I'm willing
to go on face value and assume it is he (especially since it
wouldn't matter a whit to me if it turned out I was wrong).
And, while it is interesting to hear his views regarding alleged
infringement by TC2, I am not persuaded by his opinion - at
least, that is, until also hearing the other side(s). He is one
interested party with an ax to grind.
As things stand now there is a squabble between SS, its
employees, and TC2 regarding intellectual property rights. I am
mildly interested and amused to be a spectator as the allegations
fly, and to occasionally heckle and chime in with my gratuitous
opinions, but overall it's a matter of very small importance in
my life.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what Paul (or I) think his licence
granted or reserved, but what a court thinks. And we will only
know that if the matter is litigated.
On balance, it is to my adavantage if both TC2 and SS survive,
since that gives me, a user, the widest range of choice. So that
is my rational position. But, if anyone cares, I'm emotionally
pulling for the TC2 team as they seem to me to be acting in the
original spirit of the E4M and Scramdisk projects (despite being
rather clumsy in drafting a licence for their excellent
software).
But, other than that, I'm quite content to wait and see how
things turn out.
It's not my fight.
Regards,
Phillip J. Fry
news:MW5Ac.771403$oR5.79830@pd7tw3no...
> In article <Wk5Ac.7500$Wr....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Phillip J. Fry" <Futu...@no.spam> wrote:
> >"Paul Le Roux" <pau...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:cn0Ac.2573$h9....@amsnews05.chello.com...
> >
> >Is there any reason to believe that this truely is Paul?
> >
> >Anybody have any old messages from him? Did his older messages comes
from
> >chello.com?
>
>
> I have no idea whether it is or isn't really Paul. I'm willing
> to go on face value and assume it is he (especially since it
> wouldn't matter a whit to me if it turned out I was wrong).
Normally I would too.
Except just a few days ago, somebody claiming to be Imad shows up for the
first time in over a year and talks in support of TC 2. And I think
somebody pointed out his pgp signature was invalid. (I don't have PGP
installed, so I didn't check.)
Now somebody claiming to be Paul shows up....
I don't know.
I admit I'd like to think it's Paul (and Imad), but.... [shrug]
> And, while it is interesting to hear his views regarding alleged
> infringement by TC2, I am not persuaded by his opinion - at
> least, that is, until also hearing the other side(s). He is one
> interested party with an ax to grind.
Well, he doesn't say that you can't use e4m to build something new. Only
that he never gave the authority to derive something and put a more
restrictive license (the GPL or TC1's license) onto it. So that's not
really "an ax to grind".
Just a statement about the attitude of: I made a nice freely available open
source product and you should abide by that attitude for your work.
> As things stand now there is a squabble between SS, its
> employees, and TC2 regarding intellectual property rights. I am
I haven't read anything from SS (or Shaun etc.) claiming any IP rights to TC
2.
They did for TC 1, based on e4m, but I haven't heard anything further.
If that really was Paul, then he, in writing, is disputing that and saying
that e4m is indeed his work and that that the license is valid.
> Ultimately it doesn't matter what Paul (or I) think his licence
> granted or reserved, but what a court thinks. And we will only
> know that if the matter is litigated.
Kind of the attitude of killing a hooker. "She's only a hooker, who cares"
Until you get caught.
(Yes, I know that doesn't exactly fit the situation. I was just trying to
point out that you don't always need to wait until you get caught to know
you shouldn't do something.)
Still, considering how easy it'd be for a Windows programmer to fix this
whole situation, I really don't see why we are still having these
discussions.
If the TC 1 and / or TC 2 team / person wanted to, they could fix this whole
mess with 2-4 hours of work over the weekend.
Somebody less experienced might take the whole day.
Carsten Krueger
>Carsten Krueger <use.net....@neverbox.com> wrote:
>
>>> Certainly no permission has ever been granted to anyone to produce derived
>>> code and distribute it under a more restrictive license such as
> ^^^
wrong precedence.
The license granted derived products but only under same license with
changed name.
Greetings
Shaun Hollingworth
wrote:
>"Paul Le Roux" <pau...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
Some of the facts which other people would not know before, which are
mentioned in his post, are correct, as I understand them to be. For
example Paul being in Australia when E4M was developed.
Also Paul now lives in the Netherlands.
As far as I can tell it is him.
Regards,
Shaun.