EDIT: Thanks, guys! I ended up downloading Heliboard from f-droid :)

    • abobla@lemm.eeOP
      0·
      8 months ago

      thanks, a lot of people talked about it, I downloaded it yesterday.

        • chebra@mstdn.io
          0·
          8 months ago

          @Karcinogen Disclaimer isn’t going to cut it. Are you the same person as the other 5 guys in this thread who had exactly the same argument and also “solved” it by adding a disclaimer? Is this an organized spam campaign? Because it sure looks like that. If you like FUTO, fine, but go take it to a community that isn’t focused on open source. Is that too much to ask? Every week? With exactly the same arguments? Are you guys blind?

          • Karcinogen@discuss.tchncs.de
            0·
            8 months ago

            Why won’t a disclaimer cut it? I didn’t know that FUTO intentionally misconstrued the term open-source until now. What else am I supposed to do than admit I was wrong and correct my comment?

  • newhoa@lemmy.ml
    0·
    8 months ago

    I’ve been using FUTO Keyboard and like it. It has swipe, voice annotation, undo/redo, clipboard manager, and it’s fairly customizable.

    It has some AI functions but I turn them off, aside from voice input, because typing becomes a bit laggy (on my old phone at least). You can import different language models for the AI and voice stuff. The voice input is pretty impressive. The swipe is okay, I think it will get better over time. They use their own non-Google dataset/library for swipe (which you can contribute to by swiping on their website keyboard).

    It’s still in alpha. I think it was started or funded by Louis Rossman as something to attempt an open source, private, and offline equivalent of the Google Android keyboard.

    It’s impressive for being relatively new. I hope they continue to get funded and work on it.

    • chebra@mstdn.io
      0·
      8 months ago

      @newhoa Well now that you also discovered the thread which explains the moderation here, maybe you should delete this comment?

  • Drew@sopuli.xyz
    0·
    8 months ago

    I’ve been using heliboard for more than a year without any issues. Only think I don’t like is the lack of emoji search(?)

  • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
    0·
    8 months ago

    Could you specify wether these support physical keyboards? (showing only a toolbar when one is detected). I’m using the default proprietary Kika-keyboard on my device and it’s not great. Microsoft Swiftkey works but is a bit worse.

  • Q'z@programming.devEnglish
    0·
    8 months ago

    I use the following keyboards:

    • Florisboard (supports 한굴)
    • FUTO Keyboard (supports voice input, although not very polished)
    • Typewise Offline (proprietary, best keyboard layout, good dialect support)
    • Arondeus@lemmy.ca
      0·
      8 months ago

      yeah. Takes a bit to get used to but I now have less typos than on regular keyboards. 🙂

                • Tundra@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  8 months ago

                  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/

      • Syer10@lemmy.ca
        0·
        8 months ago

        That seems like a open source license to me? The main parts seem to disallow making money from it and commercial use.

        • exu@feditown.comEnglish
          0·
          8 months ago

          That goes against at least one of the fundamental freedoms for FOSS software, but that I mind much. Still, technically but open source.

        • kekmacska@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          8 months ago

          sounds like an actually great license. tired of companies using open-source plugins in propertiary applications for nefarious purposes

          • Tundra@lemmy.ml
            0·
            8 months ago

            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.

      • mapumbaa@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        This license, plus that the app require microphone access, plus all the AI features, make my BS alarm go bzzz.

      • kekmacska@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        it is, you just can’t understand what open-source means, even though it is in its name

      • Shady_Shiroe@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
          0·
          8 months ago

          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.