The fact that no real people have reached out on their own account (except one of your devs on Telegram) shows that your community could care less about your antics.
Conversation
There are no sockpuppet accounts. You're just making it up with no basis. We have never used any sockpuppet accounts. You're just a completely dishonest person participating in an organized misinformation campaign. I recommend people look at all the retweets / likes on all this.
1
1
This back and forth is insane. CH people accusing every user defending GOS of being a sockpuppet. You accusing Seth of being part of an "organized misinformation campaign". Neither of these claims are based on any actual evidence.
2
1
3
Thanks for jumping in here, you're the only real person who has engaged with me on CHOS/GOS in good-faith so far as a Graphene user, and I really respect your input!
1
4
I hope I have not mischaracterised your situation in anything I have said here. I just want a secure FOSS phone, all this drama is mostly pointless.
1
4
Not going to get a secure or FOSS phone from a company that's based around poorly copying open source code, making it into a closed source product and then using the revenue from selling it to cause harm to the open source projects where it originates through any means possible.
1
6
I don't have any knowledge of the twitter issues better Graphene and CH, and their respective supporters.
My understanding is the split happened years ago at this point. Are you saying any further development from CH is the result of repackaging Graphene's code?
2
It's the other way around. Graphene's hardening wouldn't exist without the years of research from CopperheadOS. They took CopperheadOS, repackaged it and distributed it in violation of our copyright and licensing.
1
1
My question is regarding content of updates since the split, not ownership. There's clearly been work done on the codebase by the Graphene devs, as the repos are public.
Is similar work done on Copperhead since the split? Is it based on Graphene's changes or independently made?
2
They've done basic porting of our legacy code, although without understanding it and doing it properly. Most of what they have is taken from the newer GrapheneOS code including hardened_malloc and copying our porting work to Android 11, etc. They depend on us for anything major.
They claim that it's source available. You're welcome to try getting access to the code and seeing if that's really true.
You can look at their published releases notes for updates. You can see they didn't have security updates for months after the Android 11 release.
1
1
They ended up having to largely copy our Android 11 porting work.
It took us a couple weeks to do that after the release. It was almost done in a week but we needed a lot of testing and bug fixes before being able to do the stable release.