Talk:CopperheadOS

Letters and filings, how to use?
What if anything can be taken from these PDFs of letters and filings from Graphene and Copperhead? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should hold off from including any of the legal issues until they appear in secondary sources; at the moment I don't think we can include them without conducting original research. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Insecure since Micay's departure
Copperhead OS's page should be clearly divided into historical parts before Micay's departure and their current closed source distribution after Micay's departure. As Micay said, Copperhead is clearly compromized in its current form, so users should adopt Graphene or another distribution like Lineage. This should be made clear in the introduction, perhaps by making closed source appear in the first sentence, and delaying any spurious security claims until the body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.6.87 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Insecure" that bit is unsubstantiated. Although as of writing this, the technology they use to enforce their licensing to users hasn't been disclosed publicly, no third party review, in other words it's still a black box only the OS creator knows what's in it. What is concerning though is a tweet from the company CEO: "...CopperheadOS does NOT track our users. We track licenses." Source:https://web.archive.org/web/20210221162422/https://nitter.fdn.fr/_copperj/status/1362455547149189126# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.184.199.3 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Mr. Stradivarius User:Yae4 I believe this requires further discussion. Until the company publish audit of the latest CopperheadOS by reputable third party, any claims of privacy is rather questionable. Case in point is what method the company behind the CopperheadOS uses to track it's licences. We simply can't verify the innards of the latest CopperheadOS with old published articles anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.184.199.3 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't Wikipedia's job to verify the innards of CopperheadOS. That would be the job of independent researchers, who hopefully will have their work covered by journalists. Once this kind of thing is covered in news articles or books, we can include it. Until then, we'll have to stick with facts that have already been published in news articles and books, etc. For the Wikipedia policy on this, see No original research. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history presented by the sources in the article, I see several different pertinent events:
 * The change of licence from GPL to CC BY-NC-SA
 * The decision not to publish image downloads for Pixel phones
 * The departure of Micay
 * The removal of the sources from GitHub and of all image downloads from the website
 * Rather than a black-and-white change from pre-Micay to post-Micay, I see this as shades of grey - a gradual transition from a more open to a less open business model. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As for being "clearly compromised", we aren't in a position to judge that, as it would be original research. We would need sources (and good ones, too) to back up that claim. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

CopperheadOS is still active
, the OS still is being developed. https://copperhead.co/android/ shows "Latest Stable: 2021.02.15". Peaceray (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Copperheados 2022 screenshot.png


 * It would be nice to have an updated screenshot, but since recent versions of CopperheadOS have a non-commercial licence, screenshots of it cannot be uploaded to Commons unless Copperhead specifically releases a screenshot under a compatible licence (see c:Commons:Screenshots). If someone wants to get in touch with Copperhead and get a screenshot licenced from them, then that would work. They could release a freely licenced screenshot on their website, or they could contact Commons via email to say that the image is freely licenced (see c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team). — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A couple Micay primary sources for history
A lot of the history centers on Micay. I saw a couple primary sources that may be of interest for the article.

In 2017, Micay said maintaining hardened Android kernels was part of "my job" and he spent "far more than 40 hours a week on CopperheadOS". This was in context of stopping support of Arch packages PaX and grsecurity.

In 2012 Micay posted an application for Arch Linux Trusted User, and gave other background. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)