On Saturday 11 Feb 2006 00:31, V P wrote: > On 2/11/06, Tony Dietrich <td@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I would like to stress that this project is not commercial and is never > > intended to make a profit. It may however turn out that we cannot keep > > the project open source, because of its very nature. It may also be the > > case > > I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the project > cannot be kept opensource. I don't see anything that stops this from > being under GPL. > Please explain. > > -- > Regards > Vivek > > Registered Linux User #374218 > Livin' The iLife ~ http://www.ilifenet.net It all depends on what the encryption system ends up as I suspect. And unfortunately, it may well also depend on the mind-set of the intended end-users. Those of us on this list are aware that OpenSource software is as secure, and often better tested, than commercial, restricted software, BUT educating the end-users in the UK Legal Sector of that fact may well be beyond the capabilities of this group. So if this service is to gain the acceptance of the intended end-users, and perhaps more importantly, get the backing of those members of the Judiciary who would end up needing to use it, then we may be forced to take the project to a more restricted framework. This is far from my preference, and is not actually my idea, but knowing how stubborn and stuck-in-the-mud some members of this profession are, I can see where that argument is coming from :-( Tony
