Ah I wasn’t aware, I just assumed that even if it’s from its own repository, it is still on F-droid
Edit: reading the license, seems open source enough but I don’t have a legal background so I’m not the most well versed in that stuff, as long as code it open is the bare minimum for me.
even if it’s from its own repository, it is still on F-droid
There is nothing to stop anyone from running their own f-droid repo and distributing non-free software through it.
seems open source enough
This is the definition. Compare it with Futo’s license; it fails to meet both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition in several ways. After insisting they could redefine the term for a while (despite the definition’s wide acceptance) and inspiring some of their very vocal fans to promulgate their dishonest argument on their behalf, Futo themselves finally came around and agreed to stop calling their software open source.
Exactly, that’s more than good enough for me. This model should be encouraged for companies trying to make profit, it gives the individual privacy and protects their work from being stolen by other malicious companies.
Aye thanks, for the privacy aspect tot be somewhat covered I guess it fits the bill in its current state, but not true open source as the question asked then. Found the issue asking them to change but highly doubt they will https://github.com/futo-org/android-keyboard/issues/17
An extract taken from a statement on this exact topic, by FUTO:
"Our use of the term “open source” thus far has been not out of carelessness, but out of disdain for OSI approved licenses which nevertheless allow developers to be exploited by large corporate interests. The OSI, an organization with confidential charter members and large corporate sponsors, does not have any legal right to say what is and is not “open source”. It is arrogant of them to lay claim to the definition.
There is a reason these licenses and the organizations affiliated with them have the support of Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other giants. Corporate interests benefit directly from the “Fields of Endeavor” criteria within the OSI definition of open source. At FUTO, we fully believe that these kinds of licenses have failed to properly protect developers and community members from being exploited.
Furthermore, the OSI has done nothing to stop the proliferation of closed source malware, with “the customer is the product” as the dominant business model. They wrongly removed Eric S. Raymond from the OSI mailing list and are currently pushing for AI standards that are arguably closed source. While it is not our intention to bog this statement down in digressions about these internal OSI issues, they are worth mentioning.
The community has told us that “open source” has a particular meaning to them and suggested we call it “source available” instead. We have been reluctant to do so for numerous reasons.
Source available is not a real licensing standard and is so wildly generalized that it applies to free software, “open source” software, and in some cases even proprietary software. Many codebases deemed to be source available have extreme restrictions on everyday user’s ability to access and modify software.
Often, source available licenses require users to pay to access source code and then restrict the distribution of it to paying organizations. These restrictions do not apply to our software whatsoever. Using such an overly broad catch-all category that applies to nearly anything does not adequately inform people about what they can and cannot do with our software.
Thus, we have been calling our software “open source.” Our goal has never been to start semantic arguments about definitions, but to call attention to the wider issues we see occurring with open source software"
I just use futo keyboard
Fyi, the futo keyboard isn’t open source. The license heavily restricts against who can modify it and for what purpose. https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md?ref_type=heads
Ah I wasn’t aware, I just assumed that even if it’s from its own repository, it is still on F-droid
Edit: reading the license, seems open source enough but I don’t have a legal background so I’m not the most well versed in that stuff, as long as code it open is the bare minimum for me.
There is nothing to stop anyone from running their own f-droid repo and distributing non-free software through it.
This is the definition. Compare it with Futo’s license; it fails to meet both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition in several ways. After insisting they could redefine the term for a while (despite the definition’s wide acceptance) and inspiring some of their very vocal fans to promulgate their dishonest argument on their behalf, Futo themselves finally came around and agreed to stop calling their software open source.
Is it vulnerable to enshittification?
Once Luis Rossman dies likely…
Until then, i trust that bro
That seems like a open source license to me? The main parts seem to disallow making money from it and commercial use.
sounds like an actually great license. tired of companies using open-source plugins in propertiary applications for nefarious purposes
Exactly, that’s more than good enough for me. This model should be encouraged for companies trying to make profit, it gives the individual privacy and protects their work from being stolen by other malicious companies.
That goes against at least one of the fundamental freedoms for FOSS software, but that I mind much. Still, technically but open source.
This license, plus that the app require microphone access, plus all the AI features, make my BS alarm go bzzz.
it is, you just can’t understand what open-source means, even though it is in its name
FYI, nearly everyone (including Futo themselves), except for some Futo fans like yourself who haven’t gotten the memo, agrees that this is the definition of “open source” (and Futo’s license obviously does not qualify).
Other comments in this thread suggesting that Futo keyboard is open source have been deleted as offtopic.
no, they delete it because they can’t tolerate the truth and they resort to censorship. Orwell has seen this and wrote a book about it
all I hear is yapping, I can read, modify, and redistribute the source, what’s the big deal?
Whoa, I found the discussion rather insightful 😕
I don’t think it is OS
It is. Source code here, license here
That is a non-commercial license, so it is not open source.
Since when is allowing commercial derivative work essential for it to be called open source?
Since always https://opensource.org/osd
Aye thanks, for the privacy aspect tot be somewhat covered I guess it fits the bill in its current state, but not true open source as the question asked then. Found the issue asking them to change but highly doubt they will https://github.com/futo-org/android-keyboard/issues/17
An extract taken from a statement on this exact topic, by FUTO:
"Our use of the term “open source” thus far has been not out of carelessness, but out of disdain for OSI approved licenses which nevertheless allow developers to be exploited by large corporate interests. The OSI, an organization with confidential charter members and large corporate sponsors, does not have any legal right to say what is and is not “open source”. It is arrogant of them to lay claim to the definition.
There is a reason these licenses and the organizations affiliated with them have the support of Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other giants. Corporate interests benefit directly from the “Fields of Endeavor” criteria within the OSI definition of open source. At FUTO, we fully believe that these kinds of licenses have failed to properly protect developers and community members from being exploited.
Furthermore, the OSI has done nothing to stop the proliferation of closed source malware, with “the customer is the product” as the dominant business model. They wrongly removed Eric S. Raymond from the OSI mailing list and are currently pushing for AI standards that are arguably closed source. While it is not our intention to bog this statement down in digressions about these internal OSI issues, they are worth mentioning.
The community has told us that “open source” has a particular meaning to them and suggested we call it “source available” instead. We have been reluctant to do so for numerous reasons.
Source available is not a real licensing standard and is so wildly generalized that it applies to free software, “open source” software, and in some cases even proprietary software. Many codebases deemed to be source available have extreme restrictions on everyday user’s ability to access and modify software.
Often, source available licenses require users to pay to access source code and then restrict the distribution of it to paying organizations. These restrictions do not apply to our software whatsoever. Using such an overly broad catch-all category that applies to nearly anything does not adequately inform people about what they can and cannot do with our software.
Thus, we have been calling our software “open source.” Our goal has never been to start semantic arguments about definitions, but to call attention to the wider issues we see occurring with open source software"
https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/