No. Haven't contacted them at all. Maybe they saw those 3 tweets and realized that they shouldn't be calling it a phone running if it's running their own OS based on it. It's not clear to us what they are actually doing so we didn't specifically talk about them.
Conversation
Our tweets explained GrapheneOS is open source and can be used by anyone following the rules in our copyright licenses and for our trademarks. It stressed the importance of following the rules. If it's a fork of GrapheneOS it should be presented that way. I don't know what it is.
1
1
1
If they rebrand it and bundle apps, that's not a lot of work. If that's what they're doing, they should say it's based on GrapheneOS rather than implying they ship GrapheneOS itself. Trademark law is simple to respect: present it in an accurate way where users don't get misled.
1
grapheneos.org/faq#trademark explains how to do that. Our expectations are pretty simple: individuals or companies selling phones should accurately portray what it is that they provide based on GrapheneOS. If they make their own OS based on it, they should have their own brand for it.
1
If a company follows the copyright licenses, they can use the code. They should still be careful about how they're using our brand because trademark law is separate.
An individual or company using GrapheneOS does not mean we support them. In some cases we'd rather they didn't.
2
1
1
Not wanting someone to use it doesn't mean they can't legally use it if they properly follow the copyright licenses and don't violate the trademarks.
GrapheneOS developers may think someone has screwed up views but it doesn't mean they can't use our software. It's open source.
2
This isn't calling a software service screwed up:
> GrapheneOS developers may think someone has screwed up views but it doesn't mean they can't use our software. It's open source.
It's stating that disagreements on politics, even serious ones, don't mean people can't use it.
1
That's how open source software works. As long as the licenses are followed, anyone can use the code for any purpose. The source code and releases are published online and available to anyone. It's not only for people who share political views with the developers of the software.
1
Maybe some people think that would make more sense than open source software. They're welcome to try another kind of software licensing system trying to encode values and political beliefs into the requirements. It's not compatible with the definition of open source software.