3 ms·

Anything new on that front that you have heard? I remember the meltdown but haven't heard anything since. Looks like the business guy is just continuing to se

Anything new on that front that you have heard? I remember the meltdown but haven't heard anything since. Looks like the business guy is just continuing to sell what they had and then no updates ever. Once people get sick of that, maybe the company just goes away?

subway 8y ago
No clue. As I understand it, the author destroyed the signing keys, so updates aren't even possible. A fresh build with new signing keys would need to be flashed out of band.
aesh2Xa1 8y ago
The original author stated his intent to fork and resume the project under a new name and with a new device set, but probably still the Pixel line.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Didn't the license prevent forks?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I think he claims he owns the copyright; if that's true, the license doesn't apply to him.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      That's a bold claim when he was being paid a salary to work on it.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Was he? His claim is: "I have never had any employment agreement, copyright agreement, licensing agreement, NDA or even work contracts with Copperhead. There was a mutual understanding that I owned the code I was writing."
        monocasa 8y ago
        I can't think of a context where a judge looks at a salaried CTO commiting code to repositories with the same name as the company, in inarguably the core domain of the company, and shipped in the name of the company by said CTO, with nothing written down to the contrary and goes "oh yeah, that's totally his code, not the company's". I think Daniel's in the process of learning that verbal agreements don't mean anything when the shit hits the fan. IMO that's what he gets for switching to a non copyleft license.
        dredmorbius 8y ago
        Work for hire doctrine says he has aa very poor argument. Work for hire is a statutorily defined term (17 U.S.C. § 101), so a work for hire is not created merely because parties to an agreement state that the work is a work for hire. It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

subway 8y ago

No clue. As I understand it, the author destroyed the signing keys, so updates aren't even possible. A fresh build with new signing keys would need to be flashed out of band.

aesh2Xa1 8y ago

The original author stated his intent to fork and resume the project under a new name and with a new device set, but probably still the Pixel line.

monocasa 8y ago
Didn't the license prevent forks?
- icebraining 8y ago
  I think he claims he owns the copyright; if that's true, the license doesn't apply to him.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    That's a bold claim when he was being paid a salary to work on it.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Was he? His claim is: "I have never had any employment agreement, copyright agreement, licensing agreement, NDA or even work contracts with Copperhead. There was a mutual understanding that I owned the code I was writing."
      - monocasa 8y ago
        I can't think of a context where a judge looks at a salaried CTO commiting code to repositories with the same name as the company, in inarguably the core domain of the company, and shipped in the name of the company by said CTO, with nothing written down to the contrary and goes "oh yeah, that's totally his code, not the company's". I think Daniel's in the process of learning that verbal agreements don't mean anything when the shit hits the fan. IMO that's what he gets for switching to a non copyleft license.
      - dredmorbius 8y ago
        Work for hire doctrine says he has aa very poor argument. Work for hire is a statutorily defined term (17 U.S.C. § 101), so a work for hire is not created merely because parties to an agreement state that the work is a work for hire. It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire