23
You can contribute to an open-source keyboard by glide typing (lemmy.ml)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/opensource@programming.dev
14 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
[–] 7 points 11 months ago (8 children)

What part of the FUTO keyboard license isn't open source? It looks like most of what it says is in line with the kind of stuff you find in the GPL, MIT, BSD licenses. Is the non-commercial restriction the reason people say it's "not open source"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 20 points 11 months ago (5 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (4 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    when futo dissolves as an organization, or someone forks their software and maintains it better than they do, that fork still has to have the button to pay futo and not the new maintainer.

    there are restrictions on what you can do with the source. that is not open. the source is available and they'll accept your donation of code, but you are donating to a company's product, not a community project.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Yeah, I see what you mean. That makes sense. After reading through some common OSS licenses, I can see the difference between licenses that require you not to modify the license notification, versus software that explicitly forbids certain changes. But, given how little funding OSS projects get, I'm not bothered by the idea that they want to make sure people financially contribute to the original creators. After all, if someone does fork it and do a better job, they could easily just put their own donate button higher up above the original one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent