Aye thanks, for the privacy aspect tot be somewhat covered I guess it fits the bill in its current state, but not true open source as the question asked then. Found the issue asking them to change but highly doubt they will https://github.com/futo-org/android-keyboard/issues/17
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"
Since always https://opensource.org/osd
Aye thanks, for the privacy aspect tot be somewhat covered I guess it fits the bill in its current state, but not true open source as the question asked then. Found the issue asking them to change but highly doubt they will https://github.com/futo-org/android-keyboard/issues/17
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/