But there was no 'come work for us' implied or explicit, of that I'm sure.
This was small to medium-sized Australian government agency, knowingly talking to people we (assume) were based in either Europe or the USA, either way off-shore.
We didn't even have a tentative contract to hand, and as I say I can't remember the details, but I suspect our opening inquiry was along the lines of 'has anyone else talked to you about this type of deal', leading into a 'we'd just like something on paper that will satisfy management that we've done due diligence'. Our expectation was that it would effectively be a donation to the project.
Clearly there was, for us, back then, no perceived risk at all TrueCrypt was about to be abandoned - and the project's response to fixing bugs far exceeded any non-free / proprietary software we were concurrently deploying.
Thanks for the clarification. Although I still think a person in a position such as that of the TrueCrypt developers might be reluctant to take anything from a government or provide them any sort of... statement.
But there was no 'come work for us' implied or explicit, of that I'm sure.
This was small to medium-sized Australian government agency, knowingly talking to people we (assume) were based in either Europe or the USA, either way off-shore.
We didn't even have a tentative contract to hand, and as I say I can't remember the details, but I suspect our opening inquiry was along the lines of 'has anyone else talked to you about this type of deal', leading into a 'we'd just like something on paper that will satisfy management that we've done due diligence'. Our expectation was that it would effectively be a donation to the project.
Clearly there was, for us, back then, no perceived risk at all TrueCrypt was about to be abandoned - and the project's response to fixing bugs far exceeded any non-free / proprietary software we were concurrently deploying.