They're trying to cause serious harm to people for daring to improve open source software. They forked our software and sell a very flawed version of it with tracking and far less hardening as a closed source product. They see the original project as a threat to their scamming.
Conversation
This is far from the only person Copperhead has tried to intimidate and harm for contributing to open source software. They target people based on what they perceive as their vulnerabilities. Don't fall for their CEO trying to make himself out to be a victim. He's a sociopath.
1
5
20
They've even threatened contributors that are under 18. It's worth considering contributing under a pseudonym to make it more difficult for Copperhead to research your life and try to find ways to manipulate and hurt you. You can do that even if the work is being funded by us.
1
4
23
Simply spreading the word about what's happening and politely countering their false narratives / misinformation across platforms is a good way to contribute to GrapheneOS. Their CEO is trying to portray people doing this as somehow making them victims as if that makes any sense.
2
3
21
Replying to
Dudes who spend their time worrying about the 'poor' Proud Boys are not good people.
1
2
Imagine sweet-talking people and then supporting potential terrorists that the FBI is concerned about. To anyone watching, this is why you shouldn't use Copperhead devices.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
CopperheadOS is closed source software, not open source.
4
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
GrapheneOS is under a mix of GPLv2, Apache 2, MIT and other licenses. They do violate our licenses. They even violate the MIT license by not meeting the minimal attribution requirement. You can see for yourself that their code is not published or openly available for access.
Supposedly, you can ask for access to the source code and have them approve it. You're free to try getting access. I doubt you could get it unless they see you as a strong supporter, and they'd make you sign an NDA. Not much good to a researcher if they can't publish results.
1
2
It is closed source though. They try to portray it as having the sources available under a non-commercial usage license but they aren't openly available. It would be like Microsoft saying that Windows is source available because they share sources with approved partners...
2