Wait, this is still alive? I thought they died because of politics between the two founders.
Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys, so any existing users would need to re-format their phone to an image that accepts new signing keys in order to keep receiving updates.
In the opinion of many members of the community, without Daniel behind it, it isn't really CopperheadOS.
In a technical sense (because of the change in signing keys), as far OTA updates are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct operating system from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS.
In a social sense (because of the forced change in engineering leadership), as far as many humans are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct institution from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS.
how can you possibly state that when the users have no control or say over this decision?
> If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel ..., then
That's a big-ish "if"; I didn't weigh in on whether I think it's true. A reasonable person could go either-way on that. If it is true, then Daniel was justified, if it's not, then he wasn't.
> ... when the users have no control or say over this decision?
If we assume that people trusted Copperhead-the-organization because they trusted Daniel and that Daniel's removal is a change-of-hands, then the decisions is:
- Do nothing (and stop receiving updates)
- Start trusting the new engineering leadership of Copperhead-the-organization
From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should destroy the key: Making the active decision to start trusting the new Copperhead requires the active technical step of installing the new key; making the inactive decision doesn't require action.
If on the other hand we assume that Daniel was an implementation detail and that people trust Copperhead-the-organization as an institution, then the decision is:
- Stop trusting Copperhead-the-organization (and stop receiving updates)
- Do nothing
From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should not destroy the key: Making the active decision of ceasing trust requires the active technical step of disabling updates.
The project is dead. Stop poking it with a stick. It won't rise up again.
I'm not poking at it with a stick, I'm asking questions as an outsider just learning about it.
> In the opinion of many members of the community, without Daniel behind it, it isn't really CopperheadOS.
> Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys
it's probably a good thing they aren't involved with the company or product then
The original project has continued and the original repositories are the ones in https://github.com/GrapheneOS on GitHub (they were migrated here and have the original stars from before Copperhead even existed), which as you can see is an actual open source project under actual open source licenses with quite active development, just as it was when it started out.
Copperhead only has a barely maintained fork of the legacy code, which they are using in violation of the previous non-commercial license which they themselves convinced the project to use, which required the project to sign off on their business deals - which was actively acknowledged and respected, right up until after the failed takeover attempt where the previous arrangements / deals were simply ignored. The donations of the project were also stolen by Copperhead, which refused to return them to donors when they demanded their money either be passed along to where it was supposed to go or returned. Similarly, the project's Twitter account was stolen, and Copperhead deleted all evidence of what had occurred to cover it up along with sending bogus DMCA takedown notices to users / customers who tried to archive it on GitHub / GitLab. The cover-up was largely successful along with the attempt to take credit for the work and masquerade as the creators and developers of the project via the Twitter account takeover. People don't look closely at what happened, or at the published legal threats, actual proof and of course the still developed code. People just trust that a corporation is in the right, despite the fact that it's screwing over an open source project and co-founder of the company who owns 50% even today. Nothing to see there, clearly.
Copperhead took over the infrastructure that had been provided and it was clear that it would not be possible to ever push out another update from the actual open source project. The only use for the signing keys would have been a compromise of the project.
The CEO of Copperhead had explicitly agreed to an arrangement where they would be supporting the project while having direct ownership and control over it. The company was supposed to building a business around the project and supporting it. They were unfaithful to the agreement and turned on the project, and did immense damage to it that set back years of both technical work and work to forge connections and collaboration with other organizations and individuals. It's going to take a long time to repair the damage done to it.
And by the way, here is a series of 2 tweets for you to consider.
A) https://twitter.com/snowden/status/944244053184524288
I wonder why anyone would want to compromise this OS?
B) https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1047618052089696257
Which is quite a bit after what happened leading up to the keys needing to be wiped, and the project continuing on without Copperhead's involvement.
Here is an archive of some of what was posted, which was then covered up, including via bogus DMCA takedowns (which is noted in the repository):
https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover
The person who posted this archive was a neutral party observing what was happened, not someone involved in it.
[ https://github.com/CopperheadOS/platform_packages_apps_Updat... ]
I would generally trust Rashed's development but I would still question the company until they prove themselves, which may or may not happen.
Anybody who's had experience with plain business-types in their own salad days knows the pattern of what went down with CopperheadOS -
Programmer develops pet project focused on the technicals. Business type sees raw input for his use, offers to partner with Programmer to develop a business around the idea. Programmer isn't terribly interested in what Business type is doing, because it seems boring. Business type goes to work stacking the deck with legal paperwork, because that's his profession. Business type starts dictating to programmer what to work on, undermining original goal of project, likely for quick consulting-style revenue on something tangentially related. Programmer protests this isn't what he signed up for. Business type uses stacked deck to claim legal control over the codebase/etc, converting someone else's real work.
I'm just glad to see that Daniel is still posting, and doubly glad that he's still working on the technicals. The name was cool, but alas there it went.
I'm not going to dredge up the reference, but what it basically came down to is while they both owned equal 50% and each had a board seat, the bylaws broke ties by deferring to the CEO (James). This BATNA is exactly the type of thing that someone focused on the details of legal documents and power relationships will have planned for. While both still "own" 50%, Daniel would have had to go on the legal offensive ($$$) to bring a fiduciary claim, and a court would be hostile to the idea that the real value is based on long term development by a specific developer.
The 21st century improvement is that the codebase itself is still available to all, having been permissively licensed.
It was a false claim propagated by James that I was pushed out Rust. I left of my own accord and then someone who followed / supported my work created an uninformed Reddit thread demanding answers after I had chosen to leave and removed myself as a repository contributor. Ask one of the core Rust developers like pcwalton what happened. We had various issues leading up to that point because of my strong opinions about how things should be done and tendency to write very strongly worded arguments about it, but ultimately it was me who decided it wasn't working and left the project. They certainly didn't kick me out of the project for writing comments in a very direct 'tone'.
It's not my fault that someone who supported me thought something much different had happened and tried to speak out in support of me when I didn't need or want their help. They should have asked me what had happened before posting on my behalf and creating unnecessary drama. Only the core Rust developers knew that wasn't what had happened so other people tried to justify a decision by them which had not happened.
James is a great manipulator and you prove it by falling for this junk. Again, ask one of the core Rust developers what actually happened. Sure, we had strong disagreements about the direction of the project and were bickering a lot. It's completely false that I was kicked out of the project though.
After that, I committed to only working on projects where I would fully own and control everything, to avoid further experiences of work being judged based on employer and relationships rather than merit behind the ideas and fair and honest discussions / debates about which direction should be chosen. That led to requiring an explicit arrangement with Copperhead where I would be working on my own project, and the company would be focusing on consulting work and attempting to build a business around the open source project to support it. They explicitly did not own or control it themselves, and then betrayed the arrangement.
It's odd that you think it's okay to spread defamation about someone like this without having a clue what actually happened.
Someone followed that up by making a post trying to support me thinking that I had been pushed out which is not what happened. The people there were split between supporting me or supporting the Rust developers but they were all arguing about something which didn't actually happen.