Copperhead does not have a license and does not own the code that they forked. They were never given any commercial license to use it without my permission/involvement. I never assigned any copyright to them. I never had any employment agreement or contract work with Copperhead.
Conversation
A far superior modern version of the project with years of additional research and engineering put into it. It's available as an entirely free, open source project with an active community collaborating to make it. Not sure why anyone wants a proprietary fork of my legacy work...
2
1
7
"you're violating the licensing of my software"
Great first impression. Feeling super motivated to go try your project now.
3
4
Why are you tracking people down.. This turns me off from
1
No clue what you mean by "tracking people down". CopperheadOS is forked from a legacy revision of my work work in violation of the licensing. The licensing doesn't permit commercial usage, so both Copperhead and anyone using their proprietary fork commercially is violating that.
2
The modern version of the project is available under permissive open source licensing. The legacy revision forked by Copperhead used non-commercial usage licensing. Their proprietary fork is in violation of that licensing and people using it commercially are violating it too.
1
The project that isn't Copperhead is CopperheadOS and is not GrapheneOS and anyone using GrapheneOS is in violation. Did I get that right?
1
How about you stop trolling and trying to harm / harass open source privacy/security developers?
1
How about you take your important security man time and use it somewhere else?
1
I can't thanks to the support you folks are giving to someone that's putting all their resources and time into causing harm to us and wiping out the project. The support they're being given by your community is immensely valuable to them in further harming us.
1
If you don't want the open source project to continue existing and you would prefer to only have a proprietary fork of a small subset of the legacy code, from a company not doing any new privacy/security work, keep doing what you're doing because you're helping them achieve that.
Can't understand how people can want a proprietary fork of the legacy code by some cheap outsourced developers. It's literally a scam from someone fraudulently claiming they created and own it. Meanwhile the actual project has advanced substantially since what they forked...
1
Real question tho is why is Copperhead not in these threads
1
James is active on their Telegram channel which is how he created these problems in the first place.
2
Show replies