Conversation

you're confused about how copyright and licensing works. Copperhead has the copyright to CopperheadOS code and owns the licensing rights exclusively.

@_copperj

Feb 1, 2021

Daniel wrote CopperheadOS while under employment of Copperhead which means he is the author, however, Copperhead is the owner of the CopperheadOS copyright code.

@_copperj

Feb 1, 2021

This is the typical setup for tech companies. They employ people, those employed people write code and that code is owned by the company unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Replying to

I'll leave it to the courts to decide, but I was referring to the differ in licensing between individual files (ie. "the code") and the general repository licensing which seems to allow usage by any party as the end license for "the code" ends up being overwritten as Apache 2.0.

Replying to

and

James is giving a false narrative. He has gradually changed his story about what happened, and it doesn't make sense. Copperhead was founded in 2015. I was a co-founder of the company. I own 50% of the voting shares. I was never an employee of the company.

6:46 AM · Feb 2, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

Please read grapheneos.org/#history and at least look through grapheneos.org/legal/Micay_%2. I started the project in 2014. I worked on it on my own time. I was agreed upon that it my project under my control and all developers would own their own code without any copyright assignment.

Replying to

and

This was explicitly agreed upon and also communicated publicly. Until January 2017, the source code was published under a mix of open source licenses. In September 2016, I switched to non-commercial usage licensing for releases. I only actually changed it for the code in January.

Show replies