DESCRIPTION="Free open-source disk encryption software" This can give the impression that TrueCrypt's license is a free license according to the requirements of the FSF or an open source license regarding the definition of the OSI. However, this raises the question why there is a fetch restriction, and as discussed in bug #241650, TrueCrypt is not (completely) covered by a FLOSS license. So the impression that it is a FLOSS license is wrong. Therefore I suggest avoiding the words "free" and "open-source" in the DESCRIPTION field. How about DESCRIPTION="cross-platform disk encryption software" ?
http://www.truecrypt.org/ says: "Free open-source disk encryption software for Windows 7/Vista/XP, Mac OS X, and Linux" so that's where it probably originated.
I suggest we stick with upstream wording.
(In reply to comment #2) > I suggest we stick with upstream wording. Well, I suggested to change it, because I think it would be better that way. But it will not kill me if you disagree. ;)