It seems that there is a lot of misinformation going around right now.

The discussion is not about if OMS is our code or Sony’s, or if we used CMTE code or not (we retained authorship in both cases).

The main issue is that they claim that they developed their new system all by themselves.

See, Substratum theme apks and in particular, the assets folder structure and the implementation of variants are made 100% unique for Substratum. From type variants to manifest metadata, all of them were made specifically for Substratum, they are not standards.

All this structure, design, way of compiling and so forth is unique to Substratum.

As it stands, Slim replicated what Substratum does and are claiming that they developed the whole entire interface (frontend and backend) to our OMS base (which is very different than stock Sony OMS), and this means that it is a derivative of Substratum and even if it is 100% rewritten it was still in the intent to get around the copyright on Substratum and/or claim that they developed the whole thing.

Slim theme engine literally just replicates what Substratum does and is not unique at all and that is the issue in all of this, they committed fraud by claiming it is theirs.

This isn’t as simple or unimportant as many posts make it sound. Allowing such direct replication of our GPL licensed code to be named “original” means that it can be re-licenced as whatever they want it to be and do whatever they want to do with it, even commercializing (or close sourcing) it.

All we have been asking of Slim is to take down the builds, remove their replica system from their github and gerrit and if they want to do a alternative, fork Substratum sources and do it on top of them. Everyone is free to develop a proper fork that can be compatible with our established theme apk template.

What they have done in their endeavors in chronological order; understanding Substratum’s source code and how things should be done, rewriting it under the Apache2 license, claiming complete credit because they “rewrote” the application, and distributing a system that is leveraging on our current system - possibly convoluting it for the users and causing more issues. To put it in perspective, if you installed macOS on a Hackintosh; then when users complain, their impression is left with macOS and how it is a buggy system (because it doesn’t work completely on their hacked up machine).

We are not interested in pursuing a civil action lawsuit because it has never been our intention to hurt the community but if it becomes obvious to us that is the only way to protect our works then we will gladly go that route.

All we are asking is to do open source the right way and maintain the authorship of all the countless developers that have spent many hours/days/months developing Substratum and not try to pass it off as original development.

Giving credit to the Substratum team is not enough. We want Slim to maintain full commit history and correct authorship of each subsystem; substratum (or “frontend app”), interfacer (or “backend app”) and AOSP modifications (across all repos).

Retaining authorship is not a matter of claiming “first”. It is the proper, legal way to protect and serve the intellectual rights of the Substratum contributors on their code, so they can have a say in every action towards their code, including re-licencing it. Please read the GPL licence.

Shared publiclyView activity