0
privacy@lemmy.ml mods remove thread about a more private android keyboard under a post about a not private android keyboard. (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by als@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

I use Heliboard, an actually open source keyboard

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] MourningDove@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

He is an admin.

[-] MourningDove@lemmy.zip -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well, there goes that. lol… and look! A.ml admin here to to toss another under the bus! Go figure.

[-] naught@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

Perhaps "source available" is a more apt term for this kind of license

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

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!

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

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."

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago
[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

"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?

[-] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago

People can't change and distribute it under their license

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago

Please look up the (A)GPL and stop helping Futo with their open washing

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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/

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Preventing commercial use is against everything FLOSS

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%7E%3Atext=Creative+Commons+Attribution-NonCommercial+%28CC%2Clicense+that+bans+commercial+use.

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago

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.
[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago

Source available proprietary software

[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

~~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

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Seems to be a misunderstanding on their part about the license?

No, unlike most FUTO proponents, I have actually read and understood the license :)

[-] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago

I read and understood the license, I just wasn't aware that restricting commercial use makes it proprietary

[-] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago

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

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago

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!

this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1513 readers
333 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.

Some acronyms you might see.

Relevant comms

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus