Conversation
I would greatly appreciate it if you took this link down and let the courts decide on how we all should proceed. I'm sure you can understand the struggles of being a tech CEO and those are being compounded by having an active harassment campaign done by Graphene against us.
6
4
21
Lol, as soon as an open-source project gets attention you get big sad? Stop stealing GrapheneOS work. Stop scamming people with an OS that tracks users for license enforcement. Stop harassing Micay. Just give a little stock to Micay and this drama is over with no harm done.
3
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I wrote this code and own it. It was originally published under the open source Apache 2 license. That's the license it's being published with as part of GrapheneOS today.
I created CopperheadOS before Copperhead existed. I co-founded the company and still own half of it today.
1
2
It can be verified via the Internet Archive and multiple archives of the code on GitHub that this code was published under open source licenses along with the fact that I authored it and own it. As the owner I can re-license it, but Apache 2 is the original AND current license.
1
2
If I'm wrong I apologise profusely but, doesn't copperhead limited own the code? As I understand it the code that was written for copperheados is being licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 as a non-profit (I failed to read that bit properly first time) organisation this give you full
3
No, they do not own the code. I created CopperheadOS as open source project with my own time and resources before Copperhead existed as a company. My involvement in the company was contingent on the agreement that it remained my project, and it did. It's now called GrapheneOS.
I own half of Copperhead Limited. Speaking as the co-founder and 50% owner of the company: the company agreed to the terms that the open source project remained independent and that developers owned their code. There was explicitly not copyright assignment. On the public record.