258
A FOSS swipe keyboard that wants user input (makertube.net)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/opensource@programming.dev
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

EDIT: They want users to help generate a dataset. You just play a game and email them the data when you are done.

I just did it, it was easy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

That's not how that works...

It just means you can't modify it and make a profit from selling it or monetizing your modifications.

(... Or try to sell it without modification, for that matter)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    Show me where the license supports your interpretation.

    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.

    You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    The parts you quoted, for one...

    "Non-commercial" is well defined.

    For a general overview: https://www.copyrighted.com/blog/copyright-commercial-use#what-is-commercial-use-in-copyright

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Commercial use in copyright refers to the use of creative works, such as text, images, music, or videos, for financial gain.

    Just as I said, can't use the keyboard with modifications to write a work email. Since the license doesn't grant that permission, it's unsafe to assume that it does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    When I was 14 I purchased a CD with a copy of the Audacity installer on it from a shady site for $30...

    I seriously doubt the authors intend you to uninstall your keyboard every time you need to write a work email; it's to stop you from profiting off of their work, just as you can't remove their branding and funding links when you re-distribute.

    I have CC BY-NC images as my desktop wallpaper on my work laptop... Now if my work was selling the laptop then it could become a problem, especially if the pretty art was part of the value proposition. While it merely existing might be a gray area under some hyper-pedantic interpretation, it's functionally irrelevant in the real world until there's money involved and the licensor can show damages.

    (Psst I also changed some behaviour in my GPL editor for personal use once without sharing my changes and also I also used that version a few times while writing proprietary commercial code... Pls don't tell Stallman)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Psst I also changed some behaviour in my GPL editor for personal use once without sharing my changes and also I also used that version a few times while writing proprietary commercial code… Pls don’t tell Stallman

    As long as you didn't ship the edited binary of the GPL editor with your proprietary software, you are safe here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    Personal anecdotes of successful piracy don't make for an open-source license agreement, otherwise I would be a minor king of open-source.

    If a database server's license says “only allowed to use for personal purposes”, it's rather obvious that I can't install it at my work. If a keyboard's license says “you may modify the software only for non-commercial purposes”, it's less clear, but also not apparent why the same interpretation shouldn't apply. Most importantly, copyright law doesn't allow willy-nilly use by default in the case of doubt.

    I also changed some behaviour in my GPL editor for personal use once without sharing my changes and also I used that version a few times while writing proprietary commercial code

    As the other commenter correctly pointed out, GPL only requires you to share your code if you distribute the compiled binary. And, being a fully FOSS license, GPL doesn't restrict commercial use of programs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent