5 ms·
The source is here: https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime Featured prominently in the "Source Code" container on
by Groxx 10d ago
The source is here: https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime
Featured prominently in the "Source Code" container on https://keyboard.futo.tech/ https://keyboard.futo.tech/
AFAIK everything FUTO makes is open source? I haven't seen a counter-example (I have not looked hard though!), and https://futo.tech/about https://futo.tech/about claims the following:
>All FUTO-funded projects are expected to be open source or develop a plan to eventually become so. No effort will ever be taken to hide from the people what their computers are doing, to limit how they use them, or to modify their behavior through their software.
- jazzyjackson 10d agoRight, they are adhering to a definition of open that includes free as in liberty, so licensing matters. What good is it to read the source if I don’t have rights to modify and redistribute?
- mrob 10d agoFrom the LICENSE file: https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE... >You may 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. Violates clause 3 (Derived Works) and clause 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) of the Open Source Definition [0]. >You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes. Violates clause 1 (Free Redistribution) and clause 6. >Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others. Violates clause 3. It is a "source available" license, not Open Source. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- Groxx 10d agoAh, yeah, agreed - "source available" fits that much better. I'm pretty sure that's the same for immich (which is also from FUTO). Thank you for the details! That lays it out nicely for anyone else passing through.
- grapheneos 10d agoImmich doesn't use the FUTO license because they acquired it and it was already under a copyleft open source license.
- ravenstine 10d agoThanks for sharing this! I spoke out of ignorance, having only considered the source code being available but not the licensing. (though I find narrowly defining "open source" to be rather pointless) I haven't tried every open-source Android keyboard, I've been very happy with FUTO Keyboard. Kinda too bad it's not compatible with being shipped with GrapheneOS, but it's also understandable why they'd license it this way.
- idle_zealot 10d agohttps://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE... It is not open source. They use a custom source available license. There's no way any Android distribution would include it. A layman's reading is that FUTO could claim license violation on account of the distribution accepting donations (non-commercial use only) and there's a weird clause about not accusing FUTO of patent infringement.
- mitxela 10d agoAlternatively they could ask FUTO for a commercial license.
- HybridStatAnim8 10d agoMaybe, but there are better candidates GrapheneOS is more interested in.
- Redster 10d agoSuch as?
- HybridStatAnim8 10d agoFlorisboard.
- Redster 9d agoThanks! I wasn't familiar with it (using FUTO now), but it looks really good.