Daniel Micay on Twitter: "@octal @thegrugq The announcement of using non-commercial licensing explicitly referred to it as temporary and it was a unilateral decision made on my part as the owner of the open source project only covering my own code. The archives of the code demonstrate all of this including that I own it." / Twitter

twitter.com/_copperj/statu Similar to him initially lying to people about registering grapheneos.ca and grapheneos.net for malicious use. They no longer try to deny it and are instead trying to use them as bargaining chips. We'll see how well that ends up going.

This Tweet is unavailable.

2

1

12

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

grapheneos.org/#history is available as a simple summary. There's ample evidence available and people like

@thegrugq

who were around for it can back us up. There's also grapheneos.org/legal/Micay_%2 which covers aspects of the situation with legal relevance.

1

4

Replying to

and

There's also grapheneos.org/faq#copyright- about the copyright of the code. Prior to January 2017, it was under the same permissive open source licensing GrapheneOS uses today. From January 2017 to the split with the sponsor I temporarily licensed code under non-commercial licensing.

1

Replying to

and

The announcement of using non-commercial licensing explicitly referred to it as temporary and it was a unilateral decision made on my part as the owner of the open source project only covering my own code. The archives of the code demonstrate all of this including that I own it.

4:40 PM · Feb 23, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

Just updated grapheneos.org/faq#copyright- to clarify that builds used non-commercial licensing from September 2016 but it didn't start being applied to the source code until January 2017. Existing permissive licensing obviously can't be retroactively undone so it was for revisions.

1

Conversation