On the holy day of 11 Sep 2011, Robert James wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:46:21 +0200, I imposed a declaration in opposition
>to Anonymous Remailer (austria)'s motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY
>INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY
>INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding
>preliminary declaration,
>733c93bca01b34f6eb6f5f215024fafe@remailer.privacy .at:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2011 23:07:11 UTC, Robert James wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:05:41 +0200, I imposed a declaration in
>>>opposition to Dave U. Random's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY
>>>INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY
>>>INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding
>>>preliminary declaration,
>>>80311c90c76b185097b3caba424da662@anonymitaet-im-inter.net:
>>>
>>>> So many Open Source advocats out there and none of them reading and
>>>> compiling those few lines of code?
>>>
>>>Many are trying to fork TC into a more GNU friendly version. But the TC
>>>Foundation has attacked those attempts and created a policy of ignoring
>>>and banning people talking about forks on the forums.
>>
>> In summary it therefore can be said, that those guys aim at forking
>> TrueCrypt though they never read and analyzed the code?
>>
>> I get the impression that naughty grudgers will always find a way to
>> denigrate the work of those who are successfully pursuing their goals.
>> If the source code isn't available they allege fraud, if it is they
>> argue for making it freeware promising faster progress, and if that
>> finally happens they try to bogart the project and kick out the highly
>> skilled original authors. Let's hope those parasites meet with fierce
>> resistance.
>
>Still not gett'in it, 'eh?
Obviously not.
>The big issue seems to be the noticeable
>differences in the binary copies provided and a self compiled copy.
A few hundred kB a big issue? I often wonder why my programs become
smaller by adding, yes, adding a few lines to the source code. You
can't predict the effect of even minimal changes. There are a lot of
things affecting the size of an executable, for example the compiler
version, its settings concerning optimization, the linker properties
(elimination of redundant COMDATs and COMDAT folding, removal of
unreferenced data) and many more. To get around those they'd have to
distribute their complete development system as a virtual machine.
Robert, I see no justification for accusations based on nothing but
the size of a binary.
>Not
>to mention the unknown agenda of the seemingly few members of the secret
>foundation who seem to have much better skills in cryptographic
>engineering along with more financing then most private fortune 500
>security companies and INFOSEC government contractors.
Fortunately skills don't depend on money. Who funded Phil Zimmerman
when he developed PGP? There are many ambitious projects run by
people without any professional connection with cryptographic research
or the software industry. Without them we'd be at a loss. And where
has the TrueCrypt team invented a new cryptographic algorithm? They
were just clever in solving a specific real world problem with
mathematical methods available to anyone including you.
>In summary it
>therefore can be said, the point of free and open source software is the
>right to modify, explore and fork projects; allowing the community to
>decide... Something which the foundation seems adamantly opposed to. http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license says, that you are free to
build your own fork and distribute it under a different name. You
just aren't allowed to call is TrueCrypt, so name it JamesCrypt. Isn't
that fair? I understand quite well that they try to preserve their
reputation, which is what you want to destroy with your untenable
accusations. Obviously the crypto world is an excellent place to
spread deceptive rumors, not least done by those who oppose strong
cryptography.
Re: Truecrypt binaries are a massive, global Big Brother honeypot! 
Linear Mode
