Conversation

Hahaha, thanks for the condescending explanation! You see, the primary consumers of *source code* are... developers! Maybe it wasn't the case originally, but in today's world, the "users" you are talking about use prebuilt software, they almost never build it from source.
2
But if you must insist on that specific definition of "users" that aren't developers - I reject it entirely. Why? Because an open source license should protect the rights of the developers first. You may disagree, but I value my own rights as a developer more than as a user
1
That's not the case at all. I'm not really interested in further engaging with someone being so thoroughly dishonest and manipulative. You're demonstrating what I said earlier when I said that the toxic Free Software cult is the biggest downside to the GPL.
1
It was an unfortunate name collision but it was a bigger problem for them than for us and we didn't have any conflict with them about it. GrapheneOS brand was previously used by one of the companies building on our project. They gave us the name and branding they'd been using.
1
1
The whole thing is ridiculous and the way the legal system is set up allowed a company to drain our time, money and energy via legal shenanigans which ended up not going anywhere. That's not even over after years of dealing with it. It's actually a ridiculous and insane system.
2
It's not like the legal system has any clue how software works let alone open source, etc. You can have an incredibly solid case and clearly be on the right side of things but still lose. It's always a gamble. Depends on the judge you get and a whole lot out of your control.
1
Show replies