5 ms·

It's far from dead. The main developer is going to continue as open-source donation based. Which is great news, because Copperhead was only source-available: h

• busterarm 8y ago
  While for the most part I agreed with strncat, the way he handled things was extremely poor. Especially the part where he deleted the signing keys. This isn't the first time he's done a "drama flameout" from a project, either. Most importantly, he has made public complaints about people using his work for free. Frankly, he won't ever be in my web of trust. I'm not going to trust my critical infrastructure to him.
  • bubblethink 8y ago
    Rest of the drama aside, I feel that deleting the signing keys was perhaps the only viable choice. He was the one making the builds. What's the point in leaving the keys in the hands of the company ? It only leaves the door open for the company publishing questionable builds with the same signing key.
    • Tepix 8y ago
      Agreed on the keys. His interpretation of open source licenses is weird, he feels cheated when people use his stuff in accordance to the license. He wants to stop people from accepting donations for example claiming it's "commercial use". In that regard he's out of touch with reality.