Perhaps you're doing it wrong? Your cross-platform OS skills doesn't sound very strong. Maybe should practice some more in the different ways various OS work.
It's broken for me as I have "start searching as soon as you start typing" feature on in my browser. It's searching instead of moving. Latest Firefox on GNU/Linux.
TrueCrypt IS Open-Source. You can read the source.
Depending on whose definition you accept, simply being able to "read the source" does not make something "open source". While not accepted by everyone, the Open Source Initiative's "Open Source Definition"[1] is a very widely accepted definition of what it means to be "Open Source".
I would posit that "Shared Source"[2] is a more accurate term for a project where the source is available, but the license doesn't permit all of the things required by the OSD.
Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it.
If my understanding is correct, the TrueCrypt developers were attempting to make an "OpenSource(tm)" license, but the OSI folks had some technical objections. So the software falls into a gray area where it's not quite officially OpenSource, but it still could be modified and distributed by third parties.
> Yes, there's some confusion because the term "open source" was around before OSI attempted to define it.
No, it was not. OSI coined it. Specifically, Christine Petersen coined it.
It appears to be such a natural term now that we have become convinced that we were using it before OSI, but we weren't. The earliest OED citation for "open source" is from 1998, around the time when OSI coined it. If you have an earlier citation, please submit it to the OED. I don't believe one exists.
There is an unrelated term "open source intelligence" which is indeed older, but nobody called software "open source" before OSI.
I don't know why Bruce Perens apparently trademarked a bunch of things but not "open source" itself. However, as part of its trademark policy, OSI asks that people do not call software "open source" if it's not under an OSI-approved license:
You are conflating 'open source' and 'source available' (sometimes referred to as 'shared source' like when Microsoft makes source available for Windows to partners). Having the source available does not make it open source.
Open source means the source is available under an open source license, as recognized by the OSI. This gives you the freedom to modify and reuse it.
>Open source means the source is available under an open source license, as recognized by the OSI. //
I've been part of the [F]OSS community (mainly on the receiving side!) for ~15 years but have never seen it specified that OSS has to comply with an OSI definition.
"open source" [de-capitalisation is purposeful to distinguish with "Open Source [OSD]"] has always simply meant that the source was available to view for those the program was distributed to. For example - IIRC - Star Office was a paid application initially but was open source as those who purchased it could request the source code. Way back in the day people/companies would even make nominal charges to cover media and distribution of the source and still be "open source". Of course not all open source is free-gratis, clearly one can charge for open source. But, moreover, not all open source is free-libre either, just being open source doesn't mean that you have to have a GPL/LGPL/Berkley/CC or whatever compatible license.
I'm pretty sure I recall the OSI starting; we had open source software before that. The OSI's "Open Source" is not coterminous with "open source". For example someone distributing a linux distro that specified that no proprietary software could be bundled as part of the distro would be excluded by the OSI's definition from terming the distro "Open Source" whilst it could very clearly be completely open source. Similarly if you say "may not be used for development or activation or control of weapons designed to cause harm" as part of your license you can allow any type of source manipulation you like but the OSI's definition would say your software is not "Open Source".
FOSS (Free [-libre] Open Source Software) gives you the freedom to modify and reuse it, though there still might be relicensing controls. That's why we have FOSS and OSS definitions in the first place, the Free-libre bit wouldn't be necessary otherwise. No need to try and overload the language to push an ideological position like OSI appear to have done.
Edit: before you knee-jerk downvote, please read my link. Open source is a term coined by OSI as a replacement synonym for free software. We have somehow culturally forgotten this. We keep repeating some other version of the facts for some reason and have forgotten what "open source" really means.
It could be true, that open source meaning is different now. But still I would use open-source by its current definition. Open source's meaning has expanded than what you describe. Which is why we now have Free AND Open Source Software(FOSS).
If you would look around there are lot of licenses built around this point. All open sourced software are not free. Some allow owner to restrict its use like not allowed to be used commercially.
If I had to sum it up these two would be orthogonal:
1. Closed-source vs open-source
2. Proprietary vs free.
Well if encryption is that important you either buy a version of Windows which has FDE or you buy some other proprietary software which can do FDE. You can just keep using TrueCrypt until you need to upgrade Windows and get BitLocker supported edition.
