Sure, and while I can't recall the precise details of the correspondence, we were certainly very sensitive to that.
I'm a long-term free software advocate, and the network admin that was talking to the TrueCrypt author(s) was similarly minded, so there was absolutely no question we were seeking to taint the licence, risk the independence, demand credit or attribution, or anything along those lines.
Part of advocating free software in government agencies then (and probably also now) is that you are obliged to CYA in terms of having some mechanism by which you can demonstrate you can obtain support in the unlikely event of problems. It's a real pain in some cases (such as this), but in practice it's usually lip service at worst.
We were under no illusions - we'd heavily tested the software, and knew it was fit for purpose (it was a Windows XP rollout, so pretty well trodden ground). We were confident we'd never have to contact them again, once we'd thrown them some cash.
I'm a long-term free software advocate, and the network admin that was talking to the TrueCrypt author(s) was similarly minded, so there was absolutely no question we were seeking to taint the licence, risk the independence, demand credit or attribution, or anything along those lines.
Part of advocating free software in government agencies then (and probably also now) is that you are obliged to CYA in terms of having some mechanism by which you can demonstrate you can obtain support in the unlikely event of problems. It's a real pain in some cases (such as this), but in practice it's usually lip service at worst.
We were under no illusions - we'd heavily tested the software, and knew it was fit for purpose (it was a Windows XP rollout, so pretty well trodden ground). We were confident we'd never have to contact them again, once we'd thrown them some cash.