https://lemmy.ml/post/35472063
The original post is about a supposedly privacy focused keyboard that sends your voice and messages to OpenAI for speech to text. I posted saying I use the FUTO Keyboard as it’s open source and does voice to text on-device. There unsued a discussion about if the FUTO Keyboard is open source, as the license prohibits commercial use. After people sharing thoughts on this for a day, the mods removed the thread for being offtopic and promoting proprietary software. Even if you think that the license prohibiting commercial use makes it not open source, it certainly doesn’t make it proprietary.
Hi, that was me. Some relevant context is that uninformed FUTO fans regularly overwhelm discussion threads in spaces dedicated to free/libre open source software, arguing about if FUTO’s license (which prohibits distributing modified versions of apps) meets definitions which it clearly does not. As I wrote in a previous PTB thread about my removal of FUTO misinformation/advocacy from !opensource@lemmy.ml:
I’m pretty sure that Futo’s (now recanted) position that they were open source (despite the term having a clear definition which is very internationally recognized and which Futo’s license obviously does not meet) was an intentional marketing gimmick - “there is no such thing as bad publicity” and every time a bunch of people are arguing about them there is a chance they’ll get more customers (some of whom might even believe it is open source).
In this latest case, I did consider removing the whole thread, but since it is generally raising awareness about /e/ OS’s privacy-hostile behavior (rather than promoting it) i decided to leave it.
edit/p.s.: re one of your deleted comments saying that the license at least meets the cambridge dictionary’s definition of open source: actually, no, it does not meet that definition either.
This comment is articulate and respectful in a way that in my personal experience and posts seen on this sub is unconventional for a .ml mod
Genuine kudos, keep it up !
This might be the first time I’ve seen an actual mod from .ml take action. All this time, I was thinking you were all basically neutered by the admins and just figureheads to provide the illusion of fairness.
He is an admin.
Well, there goes that.
I posted saying I use the FUTO Keyboard as it’s open source
It is not.
Even if you think that the license prohibiting commercial use makes it not open source, it certainly doesn’t make it proprietary.
It does. If the license doesn’t meet the OSD and the FSD, then it is proprietary, because,
“Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software.” - Categories of Free and Nonfree Software.
YDI.
This is a pretty clear example of YDI. The license for that keyboard is very clearly not open source.
YDI, should have read the sidebar. If it doesn’t allow for the four essential freedoms or whatever the OSI definition is, then it’s proprietary software.
Source available proprietary software != free/libre software!
I use Heliboard, an actually open source keyboard
I suppose I was today years old when I learned that the general consensus among software people is that proprietary software means software with any restrictions, not just software which is entirely black-boxed.
I was unaware of any ongoing conflict about FUTO and thought that it was a widely supported alternative
It’s a common mistake. Many people don’t understand the difference between open source software and source available. I didn’t until i joined lemmy. But the open source software is defined by giving certain rights to the developers and/or end-users. When someone publishes the code but doesn’t fulfill the open source criteria then it is just more generically called “source available”. Many companies are interested in open-washing their license as being open source since it takes advantage of people not knowing the difference but having heard good things about open source software.
Consider a case where you have an actual open source project and there is some controversy like making the code closed source and selling off to some startup. You could then take that code and make your own fork of the project. Some open source licenses might restrict you to using the same license the project initially used but you’ll still be able to salvage the product from being monetized to hell or whatever shit they were trying to do. If the code was source available then there would’ve been extra restrictions in place and those might have prevented you from using the code at all.
Or even worse - i release code that detects with 100% accuracy the exact time of death someone will have, but when i release the code i don’t attach any license to it. This means I’m actually reserving all rights for myself even if i did put the code out there for people to see. This is actually even worse than “source available” because people can’t legally do anything with it except look at it.
Futo is not open source but it is a fine product.
Which is what I said in that thread and my comment was also removed.
This is a bad faith behavior IMHO
We really should stop commenting on ml ran subs IMHO
People say fake shit all the time without having their comment censored.
There is nothing wrong with futo being thrown in along with Foss keyboards. It should be disclosed that it is not fpsss and normies can make their own decisions.
Seems to be a misunderstanding on their part about the license?Edit: seems like the mods indeed checked the licence
In any case, !privacy@programming.dev is the second most active community on the topic
Seems to be a misunderstanding on their part about the license?
No, unlike most FUTO proponents, I have actually read and understood the license :)
I read and understood the license, I just wasn’t aware that restricting commercial use makes it proprietary
Thank you for clarifying!
Perhaps “source available” is a more apt term for this kind of license
Source available is indeed the correct term for this type of license, but FUTO doesn’t like it because that category also includes other licenses which impose different restrictions than they do. So, they now are calling theirs “source first” instead. 🤷
At least they stopped calling it open source!
I don’t understand the nuance in licensing but how is this not open source?
"Allow users to see the source code of all of our software.
Ensure that you can modify the source code for your own use, and redistribute it."
Their actual license includes these points which are not mentioned in the blog post you’re quoting from:
You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.
and
you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor
Among other things, these restrictions effectively mean that nobody has the right to fork the software, so anyone contributing to it is doing volunteer work exclusively for FUTO. When FUTO goes out of business the software can/will no longer be maintained (unless they decide to re-license it under a FLOSS license before they dissolve their legal entity).
If the right to fork seems unimportant, I recommend reading this informative text about why it is one of the essential freedoms which (real) FLOSS licenses are designed to protect.
If you could fork and remove a license, then GPL would be meaningless. You can fork but companies can’t sell their code.
They don’t want other companies to profit off the code. Maybe there scamming in there but on the surface it’s a worthy goal.
did you read the text about “Forking and Free Software” on the page I linked in my comment you’re replying to?
"Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. "
Which is what that software does. Which is why I’m confused.
Are they scammers that claim to publish their code but don’t?
People can’t change and distribute it under their license
They said you can. The restriction is that you can’t make money off it. Which doesn’t seem against the spirit of open source. Nothing in open source requires that you give your code to corporations for free.
Please look up the (A)GPL and stop helping Futo with their open washing
The four essential freedoms
A program is free software if the program’s users have the four essential freedoms: [1]
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
“proprietary bullshit”
Source available proprietary software
deleted by creator
