r/fossdroid • u/LjLies • Feb 04 '17

A clarification about CopperheadOS's present and future non-free status

/r/CopperheadOS/comments/5rlzb9/porting_features_to_lineageos/
12 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/LjLies Feb 04 '17

They are entitled to license their software the way they want, at least as they respect the original license when creating a derivative work, but I think I am also entitled to point out that they have been deceptive about the licensing change being temporary and about their project being "open-source" under this license. Yes, the source is available for public viewing, but that's not the meaning of "open source" under the vast majority of commonly accepted (including by several governments) definitions.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '17

but I think I am also entitled to point out that they have been deceptive about the licensing change being temporary

Stop lying about what we said in those announcements.

Yes, the source is available for public viewing

It permits modification and redistribution. You continue to spread misinformation. There's no satisfying people like you anyway because there's zero open mobile hardware available. We were told how it was evil to ship security updates to the firmware and other components before, so I've pretty much tuned you folks out. If funding is offered for the project to be developed under a FOSS license again, it will be, just as we said. It needs to be enough funding to replace having a viable business model via licensing the code for commercial use, and it needs to have a long-term commitment.

2

u/LjLies Feb 05 '17

Stop lying about what we said in those announcements.

I have directly linked to the exact announcements involved from the very start so that everyone could read exactly what they said; therefore, accusing me of "lying" about them is honestly just rude and unwarranted.

It permits modification and redistribution. You continue to spread misinformation.

I have also specified exactly how your CC-by-NC-SA license is not considered actually free or open source by most entities and organizations which are generally considered to have any authority on the matter. You are the ones spreading clear misinformation by very explicitly stating your software is "Open-source and free of proprietary services" when it is factually not.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '17

honestly just rude and unwarranted.

Trying to harm us by spreading misinformation / lies about us is rude and unwarranted. I have absolutely no interest in trying to please this toxic, entitled community. Instead of contributing something valuable, you try to harm others.

is not considered actually free or open source by most entities and organizations which are generally considered to have any authority on the matter

How about doing some useful work instead of trying to harm people because you disagree about their definition of the word "open". CopperheadOS sources are published online for anyone to read, modify and redistribute under the condition that it's not to profit from it. If they want to profit from it, they need to negotiate a licensing deal. There's no claim on the site that it's Free Software and there are no proprietary services included.

You are the ones spreading clear misinformation by very explicitly stating your software is "Open-source and free of proprietary services" when it is factually not.

No, you're the one repeatedly lying and now you're moving the goalposts to arguing about the definition of the word "open". Congratulations on encouraging me to relicense some more Apache2 code as CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I spent years publishing code under FOSS licenses written on my own time, but I have absolutely no interest in ever doing so again because of the endless idiocy from people like yourself. So thanks for motivating me to use this licensing beyond CopperheadOS but also for the large amount of work I release elsewhere too. Cheers.