• Blastboom Strice@mander.xyzEnglish
    91·
    5 hours ago

    Florisboard beta is what I use. Extremely customisable. I think the biggest things that lacks are custom background photo and text-gliding (I ~dont use any of these though).

    I made it almost identical to the gboard theme I was using previously and it’s so cool.

      • Shady_Shiroe@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 hours ago

        Ah I wasn’t aware, I just assumed that even if it’s from its own repository, it is still on F-droid

        Edit: reading the license, seems open source enough but I don’t have a legal background so I’m not the most well versed in that stuff, as long as code it open is the bare minimum for me.

        • Arthur BesseA
          21·
          12 minutes ago

          even if it’s from its own repository, it is still on F-droid

          There is nothing to stop anyone from running their own f-droid repo and distributing non-free software through it, which is what futo is doing.

          seems open source enough

          This is the definition. Compare it with Futo’s license; it fails to meet both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition in several ways. After insisting they could redefine the term for a while (despite the definition’s wide acceptance) and inspiring some of their very vocal fans to promulgate their dishonest argument on their behalf, Futo themselves finally came around and agreed to stop calling their software open source.

      • kekmacska@lemmy.zipEnglish
        13·
        1 hour ago

        it is, you just can’t understand what open-source means, even though it is in its name

          • Tundra
            2·
            33 minutes ago

            Exactly, that’s more than good enough for me. This model should be encouraged for companies trying to make profit, it gives the individual privacy and protects their work from being stolen by other malicious companies.

      • sith@lemmy.zipEnglish
        12·
        2 hours ago

        This license, plus that the app require microphone access, plus all the AI features, make my BS alarm go bzzz.

        • jevans ⁂English
          133·
          5 hours ago

          That is a non-commercial license, so it is not open source.

                • Tundra
                  1·
                  26 minutes ago

                  An extract taken from a statement on this exact topic, by FUTO:

                  "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.

                  There is a reason these licenses and the organizations affiliated with them have the support of Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other giants. Corporate interests benefit directly from the “Fields of Endeavor” criteria within the OSI definition of open source. At FUTO, we fully believe that these kinds of licenses have failed to properly protect developers and community members from being exploited.

                  Furthermore, the OSI has done nothing to stop the proliferation of closed source malware, with “the customer is the product” as the dominant business model. They wrongly removed Eric S. Raymond from the OSI mailing list and are currently pushing for AI standards that are arguably closed source. While it is not our intention to bog this statement down in digressions about these internal OSI issues, they are worth mentioning.

                  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.

                  Source available is not a real licensing standard and is so wildly generalized that it applies to free software, “open source” software, and in some cases even proprietary software. Many codebases deemed to be source available have extreme restrictions on everyday user’s ability to access and modify software.

                  Often, source available licenses require users to pay to access source code and then restrict the distribution of it to paying organizations. These restrictions do not apply to our software whatsoever. Using such an overly broad catch-all category that applies to nearly anything does not adequately inform people about what they can and cannot do with our software.

                  Thus, we have been calling our software “open source.” Our goal has never been to start semantic arguments about definitions, but to call attention to the wider issues we see occurring with open source software"

                  https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/