Opensource

4639 readers

104 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

Credits

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pylapp@programming.dev

You can contribute to an open-source keyboard by glide typing (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago by cm0002@ttrpg.network to c/opensource@programming.dev

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I initially tried FUTO and switched to Heliboard (which uses a closed-source glide typing library) because FUTO's open-source version frankly sucked.

I didn't know I could make it better.

Credit to @Nednarb44@lemmy.world :

It takes a lot of time and a lot of peoples typing data from my understanding. It's relatively easy for Google to make the glide/Swype type since they have a huge amount of peoples typing data. FUTO on the other hand has been making an open source version for probably 6 months or so no, solely relying on volunteers inputting words on their website.

For those interested in helping make the library better: https://swype.futo.org/ (it ~~probably~~ only works on mobile)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] specialwall@midwest.social 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That license places restrictions on your ability to modify the software, including your ability to remove content related to the payment of the licensor.

FUTO also admits that they aren't truly open source: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

I'm 100% onboard with this. FUTO is opensource in all the ways I care about. It's anti-bigtech and pro compensation of maintainers and developers. They are good in my book.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not to be pedantic, but the more accurate term would be source available. If you aren't allowed to modify or distribute the code yourself, it isn't open. I'm not saying it's bad, just not open.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

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 .

I suggest you read the article as you are simply using the OSI bible. The bible of those calling AI code opensource , mind you.

[–] entwine@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't agree with OSI either, and think their licenses are exploitative. But their definition is useful to call out orgs like FUTO.

The solution to devs being exploited by big tech is the GPL or AGPL, not whatever FUTO is doing. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too: earn the goodwill that comes from claiming you're open source, while keeping the same restrictions in place you'd see in a commercial software package, which keep users locked down to one vendor (aka "free beer" rather than "freedom")

This isn't a new idea invented by FUTO, it's called "source available". Gitlab is another example of this, as is Unreal Engine, and many others.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

I really suggest you read the post. Your arguments have already been addressed there. GPL and AGPL do absolutely nothing for maintainer and dev compensation.