FUTO just launched their privacy focused keyboard app. I know there have been quite a few posts about keyboard recommendations, so this might be worth checking out if you’re not happy with your current one.
This license while not the most permitting does not appear to hide the code behind any proprietary shielding though.
Source available ≠ open-source
Ah. Of course. Something being open source doesn’t make it open source. It all makes sense now thank you for clarifying.
That also wasn’t technically a response to my comment, it was an ideological defense mechanism to avoid addressing the content of the license.
Calling source available an open source is like calling shareware an open culture.
Yeah yeah, it’s open for everyone… For not for list of small but still exceptions…
Ah. Of course. Something being open source doesn’t make it open source. It all makes sense now thank you for clarifying.
If the license doesn’t meet the OSD, then it isn’t open-source, but just source-available. You are welcome.
That also wasn’t technically a response to my comment, it was an ideological defense mechanism to avoid addressing the content of the license.
It was. I pointed out, that FTL is a proprietary license. Because: «Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code» © OSI
Yeah I don’t agree with the osd being the only approach to being open source. Turns out people have differing opinions on that. You’re welcome.
It wasn’t a response to my comment because you didn’t respond to my comment. You said is proprietary. I point out that it’s not a terrible license. Then you resort to a sound bite non response.
You could have pointed out for example that ftl 3.2 and 4.1 are pretty shitty limitations to impose.
Yeah I don’t agree with the osd being the only approach to being open source.
Well, it isn’t the only one. FSF also has requirements for free-software licenses and FTL doesn’t meet them.
It wasn’t a response to my comment because you didn’t respond to my comment. You said is proprietary. I point out that it’s not a terrible license.
I was answering that statement: «does not appear to hide the code behind any proprietary shielding», 'cause it does.
May you explain how it is OSS when the license Section 2.1 doesn’t grant me the right to modify the code?
You still shouldn’t dismiss these sorts of licenses as “free software” has done an alright job for user freedoms but not getting developers compensated for their efforts—which is why licenses like these pop up sharing the source code, but not letting their work be exploited.
