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.
Come on, there’s no need to be hostile. Look at my history. I’ve never heard of them before. Nor am I an expert on the various licenses.
Agpl is stronger about forcing release of forked source code but doesn’t say anything about commercial use. What is an existing GPL variant that prevents commercial use?
Hey, sorry for coming off harsh. It’s just that I’ve had enough with people claiming Futo is somehow the good guy here. Preventing commercial use is against everything FLOSS and basically makes forks impossible and any contribution to the project meaningless…
Also “commercial use” is incredibly broad, in Germany e.g. all commercial websites must have an imprint and IIRC some court ruled that even private websites must have one as well, so there is that. Futos’ licensing is really a scummy move akin to MongoDBs SSPL.
The idea behind the GPL is that any change you make has to be available as source code to the users in addition to the four essential freedoms. The GPLv3 patched some exploits (LOL) regarding proprietary devices (ab)using free/libre software and the AGPL patches the “providing a service over a website” loophole which is not covered by the vanilla GPL.
This page by Codeberg has a nice decision tree regarding choosing an actually free/libre license and is also a good read in general
https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/
I upload 3d models to printables (prusa’s online library). The uploads have a license checkbox list: free to download, free to modify, must list original author in remix, and/or no commercial reuse. You check off whatever you want.
Preventing commercial use is not against OpenSource. It’s origin was because of commercial abuse. The OpenSource definition https://opensource.org/osd says no discrimination in use by businesses. It does not say you must allow companies to take your work and sell it for profit. Using open source software is not the same as selling it.
Creative commons has a non commercial license.
https://ufal.github.io/public-license-selector/#%3A~%3Atext=Creative+Commons+Attribution-NonCommercial+(CC%2Clicense+that+bans+commercial+use.
The Creative Commons website explains why licenses which use their non-commercial or no-derivatives clauses are non-free.
In 2009, seven years after they released their licenses, they did a study which found that users and creators have substantially varied understandings about which types of uses are prohibited and allowed by the NC clause.
For instance, an NC work can be included in third parties’ YouTube videos which Google might put advertisements on (as long as the uploaders don’t monetize the video themselves), but the work cannot be included in Wikipedia (because contributions to Wikipedia must be freely licensed, which means allowing commercial use).
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_license
Even the thing you linked directly contradicts what you said in like the 2nd paragraph
Yeah I was completely wrong. I had always assumed that corporate exploitation was allowed particularly with the BSD license that doesn’t put any restrictions on use. I had no idea corporate exploitation was required by the definition of Open Source.