Talk:CopperheadOS

Computing: Software / Security Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Strcat (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Special:Diff/971112695)
Anupritaisno1 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Special:Diff/972343606)

Archives

Archive 1

Letters and filings, how to use?

What if anything can be taken from these PDFs of letters and filings from Graphene and Copperhead? [1] [2] [3] -- Yae4 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@190.184.199.3: 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 Wikipedia:No original research. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@212.25.6.87: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CopperheadOS is still active

As of 15 February 2021^[update], the OS still is being developed. copperhead.co/android/ shows "Latest Stable: 2021.02.15". Peaceray (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Copperheados 2022 screenshot.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[4]

In 2012 Micay posted an application for Arch Linux Trusted User, and gave other background.[5] -- Yae4 (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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