4 ms·

The license: https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.... Concerning parts:

The license: https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.... Concerning parts: > You may use [...] the software only for non-commercial purposes > You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge > you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor ---- Also, the button that says "Download from F-Droid" is super misleading. It's actually downloading it from a third-party repo that happens to be compatible with the F-Droid app, but it sure makes it sound like you're going to download it from F-Droid's repo.

bogwog 2y ago
What point are you trying to make by quoting the license?
- josephcsible 2y ago
  That it's not even close to FOSS, and that you're not allowed to make it stop harassing you for money.
  - logicprog 2y ago
    It doesn't harass you for money, what? The option to pay just lives in a section tucked away in the settings page, and the "yes I've already paid" button works on the honor system anyway.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      > It doesn't harass you for money, what? The option to pay just lives in a section tucked away in the settings page, Are you sure? https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/9f70a84dc85830d0bdf9e584e7b4f6f3a3603585/java/src/org/futo/inputmethod/latin/uix/settings/pages/Payment.kt#L206-256 https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/9f70a84dc85830d... seems to indicate otherwise. > and the "yes I've already paid" button works on the honor system anyway. Then what's the license key for that you get when you pay?
      - threwawasy1228 2y ago
        As a paying customer the answer is that you don't get any features other than a thing saying that you paid. It is similar to donating to Signal Foundation where you don't get some 'new feature' within the Signal app for having paid, you just get a little thing next to your user icon showing that you did. It is a support badge.
      - alex-futo 2y ago
        Hi, I'm the person who wrote that code. We're not trying to harass people for money and it's been designed in a way I think is fair. The unpaid reminder appears in the settings screen after the app is installed for 30 days, and once it appears there's a button that lets you postpone the reminder for up to infinity days. Of course nothing stops you from also just tapping "I already paid". We don't validate license keys in FUTO Keyboard, we just have a payment system that issues them. The app can't connect to the internet, so it's not like there's an easy way to verify them anyway or stop people from just posting their key online.
        josephcsible 2y ago
        I apologize, "harass" was too strong of a word. The way the reminder works in and of itself hardly bothers me at all. I'm more upset on principle that there's anything at all that runs on my device that I'm not allowed to change.
        card_zero 2y ago
        I use Hacker's Keyboard for its arrow keys and ctrl (for copy and paste). I can't see useful keys like that mentioned as features of FUTO keyboard.
        logicprog 2y ago
        I'm running the keyboard right now and it has a text editor mode that gives you arrow keys, a capslock key, and clipboard keys, but I don't see a control or alt key.
        Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y ago
threePointFive 2y ago
How does precedent about how commercial is interpeted here apply? If I use this to fire off a work email, is that commercial? Or does this only apply if I'm selling a product built around this?
- josephcsible 2y ago
  My reading of the license is that if you use it to type any text for work, you're in violation.
  - threwawasy1228 2y ago
    I think that is a ridiculously incorrect and bad faith interpretation of the license clauses.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      How so? Given that the license says you can't "use" it for commercial purposes, as opposed to just that you can't modify or distribute it for commercial purposes, what else would that mean?
      - ohmyiv 2y ago
        It means you can't sell it/make a profit from it. There's a legal definition of "commercial purposes": https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-538810865-105758365&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
        mkl 2y ago
        That's a legal definition of "used for commercial purposes" for vehicles: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-2
logicprog 2y ago
> Concerning parts: > > You may use [...] the software only for non-commercial purposes > > You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge > > you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor This definitely isn't ideal (I'm a big GPL fan) but honestly, as long as it still allows copying, modification, and redistribution for non-commercial purposes (which it does) this doesn't concern me that much. I'm not too worried about the potential prospects of other businesses that might want to base their work off of this business's work as long as the community would still be able to create forks and derivative versions. It certainly isn't the ideal of free software that I prefer everything to adhere to, but it's acceptable to me at least. It's sort of as I say elsewhere, a CC-BY-SA-NC type deal.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  I dunno, I think it's worth five bucks. We get too wrapped around the axle on licenses. I can do whatever I want with the source except rip off FUTO which sounds fine by me. What are y'all planning to do with the source that the license prevents you from doing?
  - logicprog 2y ago
    I mean, in my personal opinion, it's totally possible to use GPL licensing on software that you then build a business around. You just have to be a little bit more creative and offer more than just rent-seeking on past labor. Some examples of perfectly feasible ways to build a business around GPL or AGPL software without going bankrupt: 1. Providing all of the source and documentation and build tools needed to build something but only providing pre-built binaries or packages for the program if someone pays. That way they aren't really paying for the software but for the human labor that goes into packaging up the software and making it easy and the computer time and hosting storage that that takes up and all of that. 2. requiring people to pay a discounted amount to get the pre-built binaries or packages of New versions of your software, so that your ongoing revenue is tied to continually making improvements to your product that will actually make people want to move to the new improved version, instead of simply charging a recurring subscription, whether or not people actually like the improvements the subscription is making or actually want to upgrade and then forcing them to upgrade or charging a recurring fee to even maintain access to an old version of the software. 3. providing AGPL containerized versions of your server software, but charging a monthly subscription to access the version of that software that you host for your customers, since obviously servers have recurring fees associated with them, that most people wouldn't want to Self-host, simply because it's a lot of work, but those who do want to do that work still can. 4. Providing good customer support 5. Prioritizing working on bugs or features that a lot of people donate a small amount of money to, sort of like crowdfunding individual components of your application. 6. associating your software business with a hardware business, like System76 does 7. Just operating based on donations, but making it very quick and easy and convenient to donate, and the donation system available from somewhere within your software that's unobtrusive but easy to access like Mozilla Thunderbird does. (This is sort of what FUTO Keyboard seems to do). 8. Subsusting on donations but using an indie game style "pay what you can" interface like elementaryOS does. In general, the trick is just to provide services that actually require ongoing money in compensation for ongoing labor and actually add value to just the bare source code.
kstrauser 2y ago
On that note, looks like the license use to be Apache 2. From commit 5b85311a in the repo (which is forked from another project): >commit 5b85311ab09ed4d8d3dacb235de77f7de8253b1b > Author: Yohei Yukawa <yukawa@google.com> > Date: Mon Nov 19 12:11:31 2018 -0800 > Move MODULE_LICENSE_APACHE2 to the project top dir > In general files in LatinIME project should be Apache 2 license (unless some exceptional note is there). This is not limited to Java source files. At first glance, this looks like someone took a FOSS project and illegally changed its license. Am I reading that wrong?
- josephcsible 2y ago
  Apache 2 is a permissive (think "pushover") license that allows proprietary forks. If the original were GPL or another copyleft license, then this would indeed have been illegal.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    Can you? The relevant bit from the license seems to be: > You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. I'm not clear how to interpret that "as a whole" bit combined with "otherwise complies".
    - skeledrew 2y ago
      Essentially the most that is really required by permissive licenses (Apache, BSD, MIT and their ilk) is a preservation of the license text, if even that. Anything else beyond that is open to change. So anyone can take any project licensed as such, and relicense with something more or less business-friendly, regardless of whether all contributors agree or not. That's what it means to be permissive.
      - kstrauser 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
threwawasy1228 2y ago
I think you are being incredibly harsh about the licensing structure, they are simply trying to make sure companies with keyboard apps like Google don't steal their work out from under them by adding in a non-commercial clause. Lots of companies have this Elastic Search License, Business Source License, etc. There are numerous companies who have used permissive licenses only to be horribly burned by companies stealing their work out from underneathe them and they have subsequently used non-OSI approved licenses. Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours?
- josephcsible 2y ago
  Wouldn't a copyleft FOSS license like the AGPLv3 keep companies like Google from stealing their work out from under them too? > Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours? See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
  - threwawasy1228 2y ago
    I don't need to see the link, I am aware of what your stance roughly is. I'm saying: Why are you so intolerant of the freedoms of other people to make their own choices about what license structures are best for them and their needs? Developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they please. Just because you have a pet category of license structure that you think everyone should use, why can't you be respectful of those who choose other options? It is essentially you forcing your narrow definition of what you think licenses are and how they should be structured onto everyone else? Why can't people simply say they understand the various licensing options but they choose one that isn't the one you like after a careful consideration? Are they simply not allowed to have a diffferent opinion than you? If you make your argument and the maintainer still chooses another license, that is a failure on the part of the FSF to properly sell their mission or elaborate their arguments. Does the fact that someone chose something other than what you prefer mean that you now need to go around evangelizing every time that any non-FOSS license is used?

bogwog 2y ago

What point are you trying to make by quoting the license?

josephcsible 2y ago
That it's not even close to FOSS, and that you're not allowed to make it stop harassing you for money.
- logicprog 2y ago
  It doesn't harass you for money, what? The option to pay just lives in a section tucked away in the settings page, and the "yes I've already paid" button works on the honor system anyway.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    > It doesn't harass you for money, what? The option to pay just lives in a section tucked away in the settings page, Are you sure? https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/9f70a84dc85830d0bdf9e584e7b4f6f3a3603585/java/src/org/futo/inputmethod/latin/uix/settings/pages/Payment.kt#L206-256 https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/9f70a84dc85830d... seems to indicate otherwise. > and the "yes I've already paid" button works on the honor system anyway. Then what's the license key for that you get when you pay?
    - threwawasy1228 2y ago
      As a paying customer the answer is that you don't get any features other than a thing saying that you paid. It is similar to donating to Signal Foundation where you don't get some 'new feature' within the Signal app for having paid, you just get a little thing next to your user icon showing that you did. It is a support badge.
    - alex-futo 2y ago
      Hi, I'm the person who wrote that code. We're not trying to harass people for money and it's been designed in a way I think is fair. The unpaid reminder appears in the settings screen after the app is installed for 30 days, and once it appears there's a button that lets you postpone the reminder for up to infinity days. Of course nothing stops you from also just tapping "I already paid". We don't validate license keys in FUTO Keyboard, we just have a payment system that issues them. The app can't connect to the internet, so it's not like there's an easy way to verify them anyway or stop people from just posting their key online.
      - josephcsible 2y ago
        I apologize, "harass" was too strong of a word. The way the reminder works in and of itself hardly bothers me at all. I'm more upset on principle that there's anything at all that runs on my device that I'm not allowed to change.
      - card_zero 2y ago
        I use Hacker's Keyboard for its arrow keys and ctrl (for copy and paste). I can't see useful keys like that mentioned as features of FUTO keyboard.
        logicprog 2y ago
        I'm running the keyboard right now and it has a text editor mode that gives you arrow keys, a capslock key, and clipboard keys, but I don't see a control or alt key.
        Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y ago

threePointFive 2y ago

How does precedent about how commercial is interpeted here apply? If I use this to fire off a work email, is that commercial? Or does this only apply if I'm selling a product built around this?

josephcsible 2y ago
My reading of the license is that if you use it to type any text for work, you're in violation.
- threwawasy1228 2y ago
  I think that is a ridiculously incorrect and bad faith interpretation of the license clauses.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    How so? Given that the license says you can't "use" it for commercial purposes, as opposed to just that you can't modify or distribute it for commercial purposes, what else would that mean?
    - ohmyiv 2y ago
      It means you can't sell it/make a profit from it. There's a legal definition of "commercial purposes": https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-538810865-105758365&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
      - mkl 2y ago
        That's a legal definition of "used for commercial purposes" for vehicles: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-2

logicprog 2y ago

> Concerning parts: > > You may use [...] the software only for non-commercial purposes > > You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge > > you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor This definitely isn't ideal (I'm a big GPL fan) but honestly, as long as it still allows copying, modification, and redistribution for non-commercial purposes (which it does) this doesn't concern me that much. I'm not too worried about the potential prospects of other businesses that might want to base their work off of this business's work as long as the community would still be able to create forks and derivative versions. It certainly isn't the ideal of free software that I prefer everything to adhere to, but it's acceptable to me at least. It's sort of as I say elsewhere, a CC-BY-SA-NC type deal.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
I dunno, I think it's worth five bucks. We get too wrapped around the axle on licenses. I can do whatever I want with the source except rip off FUTO which sounds fine by me. What are y'all planning to do with the source that the license prevents you from doing?
- logicprog 2y ago
  I mean, in my personal opinion, it's totally possible to use GPL licensing on software that you then build a business around. You just have to be a little bit more creative and offer more than just rent-seeking on past labor. Some examples of perfectly feasible ways to build a business around GPL or AGPL software without going bankrupt: 1. Providing all of the source and documentation and build tools needed to build something but only providing pre-built binaries or packages for the program if someone pays. That way they aren't really paying for the software but for the human labor that goes into packaging up the software and making it easy and the computer time and hosting storage that that takes up and all of that. 2. requiring people to pay a discounted amount to get the pre-built binaries or packages of New versions of your software, so that your ongoing revenue is tied to continually making improvements to your product that will actually make people want to move to the new improved version, instead of simply charging a recurring subscription, whether or not people actually like the improvements the subscription is making or actually want to upgrade and then forcing them to upgrade or charging a recurring fee to even maintain access to an old version of the software. 3. providing AGPL containerized versions of your server software, but charging a monthly subscription to access the version of that software that you host for your customers, since obviously servers have recurring fees associated with them, that most people wouldn't want to Self-host, simply because it's a lot of work, but those who do want to do that work still can. 4. Providing good customer support 5. Prioritizing working on bugs or features that a lot of people donate a small amount of money to, sort of like crowdfunding individual components of your application. 6. associating your software business with a hardware business, like System76 does 7. Just operating based on donations, but making it very quick and easy and convenient to donate, and the donation system available from somewhere within your software that's unobtrusive but easy to access like Mozilla Thunderbird does. (This is sort of what FUTO Keyboard seems to do). 8. Subsusting on donations but using an indie game style "pay what you can" interface like elementaryOS does. In general, the trick is just to provide services that actually require ongoing money in compensation for ongoing labor and actually add value to just the bare source code.

kstrauser 2y ago

On that note, looks like the license use to be Apache 2. From commit 5b85311a in the repo (which is forked from another project): >commit 5b85311ab09ed4d8d3dacb235de77f7de8253b1b > Author: Yohei Yukawa <yukawa@google.com> > Date: Mon Nov 19 12:11:31 2018 -0800 > Move MODULE_LICENSE_APACHE2 to the project top dir > In general files in LatinIME project should be Apache 2 license (unless some exceptional note is there). This is not limited to Java source files. At first glance, this looks like someone took a FOSS project and illegally changed its license. Am I reading that wrong?

josephcsible 2y ago
Apache 2 is a permissive (think "pushover") license that allows proprietary forks. If the original were GPL or another copyleft license, then this would indeed have been illegal.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Can you? The relevant bit from the license seems to be: > You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. I'm not clear how to interpret that "as a whole" bit combined with "otherwise complies".
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    Essentially the most that is really required by permissive licenses (Apache, BSD, MIT and their ilk) is a preservation of the license text, if even that. Anything else beyond that is open to change. So anyone can take any project licensed as such, and relicense with something more or less business-friendly, regardless of whether all contributors agree or not. That's what it means to be permissive.
    - kstrauser 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

threwawasy1228 2y ago

I think you are being incredibly harsh about the licensing structure, they are simply trying to make sure companies with keyboard apps like Google don't steal their work out from under them by adding in a non-commercial clause. Lots of companies have this Elastic Search License, Business Source License, etc. There are numerous companies who have used permissive licenses only to be horribly burned by companies stealing their work out from underneathe them and they have subsequently used non-OSI approved licenses. Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours?

josephcsible 2y ago
Wouldn't a copyleft FOSS license like the AGPLv3 keep companies like Google from stealing their work out from under them too? > Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours? See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
- threwawasy1228 2y ago
  I don't need to see the link, I am aware of what your stance roughly is. I'm saying: Why are you so intolerant of the freedoms of other people to make their own choices about what license structures are best for them and their needs? Developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they please. Just because you have a pet category of license structure that you think everyone should use, why can't you be respectful of those who choose other options? It is essentially you forcing your narrow definition of what you think licenses are and how they should be structured onto everyone else? Why can't people simply say they understand the various licensing options but they choose one that isn't the one you like after a careful consideration? Are they simply not allowed to have a diffferent opinion than you? If you make your argument and the maintainer still chooses another license, that is a failure on the part of the FSF to properly sell their mission or elaborate their arguments. Does the fact that someone chose something other than what you prefer mean that you now need to go around evangelizing every time that any non-FOSS license is used?