3 ms·
Yes, I realize that the official stance is that it isn't grapheneos without the security features. That doesn't change the fact that someone who won't have the
by fc417fc802 25d ago
Yes, I realize that the official stance is that it isn't grapheneos without the security features. That doesn't change the fact that someone who won't have the security features either way (and presumably doesn't care because otherwise he would switch to a different piece of hardware) might want the option of using a build of grapheneos that isn't officially condoned by the maintainers. (That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right?)
I didn't realize fairphone was stuck on an EoL kernel. I guess that means that even if the build can be made to work right now (far from certain given an old kernel) it would likely break in the future.
- grapheneos 24d ago> might want the option of using a build of grapheneos An OS without the core features and updates of GrapheneOS clearly isn't GrapheneOS. It's not permitted to refer to it as such. > That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right? No, the point of FOSS is that you can take all of our code and use it for other purposes. Calling an incomplete port to another device GrapheneOS is misleading users. It isn't GrapheneOS and must have a unique name.
- fc417fc802 24d agoNo one was suggesting that your trademark should be infringed when marketing to users. If I do my own custom build of firefox referring to it as such in casual conversation is entirely separate from marketing it under that name for others to use (see ex icecat). Honestly while grapheneos is a useful thing that I'm glad exists you're being absolutely insufferable.
- Magicrafter13 24d agoan objective statement of fact should not be considered "absolutely insufferable"
- fc417fc802 24d agoAs always, context is all important.