For those who don't know, the actual CopperheadOS ceased to exist a few years ago after the business side partner tried to force the developer to give feds backdoor keys, then fraudulently asserted IP ownership.
Conversation
The current "product" is a recreation with none of the original security properties the reputation implies.
1
8
Replying to
Also false. I really hope you take your technical research more seriously than your understanding of software licensing and copyright.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I never had any contracts or employment agreement with Copperhead and there was never any copyright assignment. They have no commercial license to use the code they forked either. The original repositories are mine on GitHub. They forked my project, not the other way around.
1
1
It was an open source project. Copperhead was a sponsor of that project. I currently own 50% of Copperhead and I am speaking as someone that controls 50% of the voting shares. No contract, no employment agreement, no copyright assignment. Explicit agreement that I owned the code.
It was very explicitly agreed upon that it was my open source project. I controlled it and owned all of my work on it. Every commit that I made listed me as the author/owner via my personal email address. There was of course never a notice listing Copperhead as owning code.
1
1
It was EXPLICITLY AGREED on multiple occasions that I owned and controlled the project, and that donations to the open source project were donations to me, not the company. That was a clear condition of their involvement. They don't have any special license to use my work either.
1