Subject: Re: For Approval: TrueCrypt Collective License Version 2.0
From: "Tomas Novak" <counsel@truecrypt.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:29:49 +0200 (CEST)

Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:

> All of these licenses should be submitted separately, to allow their 
> separate use. 

Hi Matthew,

Yes, we plan to submit the component licenses separately after this 
license (including its component licenses) is approved as a whole. This 
is very important to us, as we cannot distribute our product under only 
one of the component licenses. We need OSI approval of the license as a 
whole. In our opinion, if the three component licenses were approved 
only separately, we could not claim that TrueCrypt is distributed under 
an OSI-approved license. We need to define relationships between the 
component licenses and their domains (for example, the component 
licenses use the phrase "this product", which could mislead the 
licensee, as none of the component licenses actually applies to the 
product as a whole). In our opinion, none of these things could be 
achieved if the component licenses were submitted separately.


> You should also templatitize the license

Yes, we already considered that. However, it is impossible to 
templatize the whole TrueCrypt Collective License (TCL). The problem is 
that the text of the E4M component license cannot be changed, so it 
cannot be templatized. We plan to submit the TrueCrypt component 
license in a templatized form after the TCL is approved.  


Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Sincerely,
Tomas Novak

TrueCrypt Foundation
http://www.truecrypt.org/