5 ms·

I disagree, at least to some extent. CopperheadOS is open source. The scripts to build a ROM are open and it's possible to audit them. In fact, if you don't wa

by nextos 8y ago

I disagree, at least to some extent. CopperheadOS is open source. The scripts to build a ROM are open and it's possible to audit them. In fact, if you don't want to pay for COS you are free to build your own image using said scripts. I've done it. It's easy. I think the whole mistake CopperheadOS did was switching to a Creative Commons license that prevented commercial use by third parties. This has effectively made it tricky for Daniel Micay to continue his great work on CopperheadOS elsewhere once the company imploded. It's sad, because it's IMHO the very best ROM out there. I don't want to use anything else. I think they should have gone for a more sustainable business model. In his shoes, I'd restart COS by doing a crowdfunding round and aiming at a few other devices (which may not be hard now with device-agnostic ROMs made possible by Treble). COS has had a reduced target market since Google decided to price Pixel terminals much higher than Nexus. There are rumours that they might release a cheap Pixel to compete with iPhone SE. That might be good for COS.

craftyguy 8y ago
> CopperheadOS is open source. Technically, it is. But, as you pointed out, the license they chose guarantees that it will essentially die out, specifically the bit prohibiting the non-commercial use of it. It's also mildly interesting that Daniel aggressively defended the creative commons license they chose, when challenged.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  I don't understand this. What exactly is licensed under Creative Commons Non-Commercial? It is either open source, or it isn't. If it is open source (OSI approved), that doesn't prohibit non-commercial work. Because then it wouldn't be OSI approved. Right?
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    You don't understand that people might use the words "open source" in a slightly different way than you do?
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      It isn't "a different way than I do"; its different from both the defacto meaning of the term open source, and it isn't according to OSI. That makes calling such open source deceiving, just like calling shared source open source would be deceiving. Seen enough of that shit to stick to frameworks such as OSI-approved (which is more liberal than FSF or DFSG so it could be even more strict ie. we're being generous).
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        "shared source" doesn't let you use the code yourself. CC-NC gives you the exact same rights to use/modify/redistribute that you got the code under. The OSI approves licenses with various restrictions on them, such as displaying authorship, or reciprocation, or patent grants. I haven't seen any reason to categorize a noncommercial restriction as fundamentally different. The noncommercial clause is a huge issue because of how vague it is, but that's a different topic entirely. Also, using the OSI list as the ultimate reference isn't appropriate in the first place. They only approve licenses that are designed for software. I think almost everyone would agree that CC-BY and GFDL are open source licenses, despite them not being on that list.
        Fnoord 8y ago
        "various restrictions on them, such as displaying authorship, or reciprocation, or patent grants." Those are for the greater good. Saying you are not allowed to use the source code for commercial reasons is discrimination and that isn't allowed according to OSI. I'm cool if you don't wanna use OSI as a rule of thumb; but then my alternatives are FSF's free software definition, or DFSG. We're discussing source code; so whether something is OSS or not refers to open source software; OSS. The last S is usually omitted, but it still refers to open source software. > I think almost everyone would agree that CC-BY and GFDL are open source licenses, despite them not being on that list. These have nothing to do with open source. They might be in the spirit of open source at best (in the situation of GDFL and text), but that's it. Documentation cannot be open source, and GDFL can actually be harmful in that context.
    - 8y ago
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
The issue with your suggestion that it being open source and auditable makes it secure is that you probably have not read or audited all of the source. Security still relies inherently on trust. And therefore the structure of the entity that controls that software must be trustworthy.
nickpsecurity 8y ago
"I think the whole mistake CopperheadOS did was switching to a Creative Commons license that prevented commercial use by third parties." Maybe. It depends on what commercial use means in that license. Quite a few products are given away for free supported by other products that are commercial. The Open Core model usually does that with layering but the paid product can be entirely different. Maybe something running on CopperheadOS like backup or messaging software. Something individuals and enterprises might buy.
beojan 8y ago
CC non-commercial isn't open source.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  It is open source but not free software.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Not according to the OSI definition, which arguably traces back very directly to the original idea behind the term: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - toyg 8y ago
      The whole OSI endeavour is far from uncontroversial in the OSS/FOSS world. It's not gospel to quote from, particularly when it comes to commercial use. A lot of people would say that OSI exists precisely to make sure corporation-friendly clauses like this would prevail in the open-source world. Hell, the whole "open source" term was literally invented by people like ESR to differentiate from Free Software enough to make it an easier sell in the commercial world.
      - detaro 8y ago
        > Hell, the whole "open source" term was literally invented by people like ESR to differentiate from Free Software enough to make it an easier sell in the commercial world. If it was invented for that purpose, isn't that a reason why one shouldn't use the term for things that conflict with that goal? "Free Software" following GNU also can't have a non-commerce clause (Freedom 0). I totally get that people want to restrict commercial use, but I believe "everyone can use the software" is enough of a core value and a NC-license would be incompatible with so much of the ecosystem that it's fair to classify NC-licenses as something else.
icebraining 8y ago
In the thread, he says he owns the vast majority of the code, so he should be able to use it freely and distribute it under any license; at most he'll have to request new licenses from other contributors or rewrite their code.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  He also apparently deleted the signing keys to prevent himself from being coerced into offering another update.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Sure, CopperheadOS the project is dead, but nothing stops him from launching a new project with the same code.

by nextos 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago

> CopperheadOS is open source. Technically, it is. But, as you pointed out, the license they chose guarantees that it will essentially die out, specifically the bit prohibiting the non-commercial use of it. It's also mildly interesting that Daniel aggressively defended the creative commons license they chose, when challenged.

Fnoord 8y ago
I don't understand this. What exactly is licensed under Creative Commons Non-Commercial? It is either open source, or it isn't. If it is open source (OSI approved), that doesn't prohibit non-commercial work. Because then it wouldn't be OSI approved. Right?
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  You don't understand that people might use the words "open source" in a slightly different way than you do?
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    It isn't "a different way than I do"; its different from both the defacto meaning of the term open source, and it isn't according to OSI. That makes calling such open source deceiving, just like calling shared source open source would be deceiving. Seen enough of that shit to stick to frameworks such as OSI-approved (which is more liberal than FSF or DFSG so it could be even more strict ie. we're being generous).
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      "shared source" doesn't let you use the code yourself. CC-NC gives you the exact same rights to use/modify/redistribute that you got the code under. The OSI approves licenses with various restrictions on them, such as displaying authorship, or reciprocation, or patent grants. I haven't seen any reason to categorize a noncommercial restriction as fundamentally different. The noncommercial clause is a huge issue because of how vague it is, but that's a different topic entirely. Also, using the OSI list as the ultimate reference isn't appropriate in the first place. They only approve licenses that are designed for software. I think almost everyone would agree that CC-BY and GFDL are open source licenses, despite them not being on that list.
      - Fnoord 8y ago
        "various restrictions on them, such as displaying authorship, or reciprocation, or patent grants." Those are for the greater good. Saying you are not allowed to use the source code for commercial reasons is discrimination and that isn't allowed according to OSI. I'm cool if you don't wanna use OSI as a rule of thumb; but then my alternatives are FSF's free software definition, or DFSG. We're discussing source code; so whether something is OSS or not refers to open source software; OSS. The last S is usually omitted, but it still refers to open source software. > I think almost everyone would agree that CC-BY and GFDL are open source licenses, despite them not being on that list. These have nothing to do with open source. They might be in the spirit of open source at best (in the situation of GDFL and text), but that's it. Documentation cannot be open source, and GDFL can actually be harmful in that context.
  - 8y ago

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

The issue with your suggestion that it being open source and auditable makes it secure is that you probably have not read or audited all of the source. Security still relies inherently on trust. And therefore the structure of the entity that controls that software must be trustworthy.

nickpsecurity 8y ago

"I think the whole mistake CopperheadOS did was switching to a Creative Commons license that prevented commercial use by third parties." Maybe. It depends on what commercial use means in that license. Quite a few products are given away for free supported by other products that are commercial. The Open Core model usually does that with layering but the paid product can be entirely different. Maybe something running on CopperheadOS like backup or messaging software. Something individuals and enterprises might buy.

beojan 8y ago

CC non-commercial isn't open source.

JetSpiegel 8y ago
It is open source but not free software.
- detaro 8y ago
  Not according to the OSI definition, which arguably traces back very directly to the original idea behind the term: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - toyg 8y ago
    The whole OSI endeavour is far from uncontroversial in the OSS/FOSS world. It's not gospel to quote from, particularly when it comes to commercial use. A lot of people would say that OSI exists precisely to make sure corporation-friendly clauses like this would prevail in the open-source world. Hell, the whole "open source" term was literally invented by people like ESR to differentiate from Free Software enough to make it an easier sell in the commercial world.
    - detaro 8y ago
      > Hell, the whole "open source" term was literally invented by people like ESR to differentiate from Free Software enough to make it an easier sell in the commercial world. If it was invented for that purpose, isn't that a reason why one shouldn't use the term for things that conflict with that goal? "Free Software" following GNU also can't have a non-commerce clause (Freedom 0). I totally get that people want to restrict commercial use, but I believe "everyone can use the software" is enough of a core value and a NC-license would be incompatible with so much of the ecosystem that it's fair to classify NC-licenses as something else.

icebraining 8y ago

In the thread, he says he owns the vast majority of the code, so he should be able to use it freely and distribute it under any license; at most he'll have to request new licenses from other contributors or rewrite their code.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
He also apparently deleted the signing keys to prevent himself from being coerced into offering another update.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Sure, CopperheadOS the project is dead, but nothing stops him from launching a new project with the same code.