Asklemmy

44152 readers

853 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Which keyboard app do you use on your phones? Do you enable clipboard history in it? (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I use Gboard, as I'm on Android.

Do you use Gboard or the clipboard feature? Or use a similar feature of an other keyboard app?
Do you use apps like NetGuard or TrackerControl to restrict net access to the keyboard apps?

Have tried some FOSS apps some years ago, but didn't stay on them because, Malayalam(my mother tongue) and the handwriting mode(which is quite good), is not available in most other apps.

I had thought about turning on the clipboard history option and am thinking about the privacy/security aspect behind it. As per Gboard, it remembers history for 1 hour and there seems to be no sync option. So it seems sort-of safe. Thinking about such things since I do copy-paste OTP's.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There's nothing wrong per se with what FUTO is doing. They have the right to determine how people can use their code. What is wrong is trying to use the term "open source" which has a very clear meaning to try and win marketing brownie points among its user base when it does not actually follow that definition. It is misleading at best.

Basically: don't misuse the open source moniker for source-available projects.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The more accurate way to say that is, "open source" has a very clear meaning to a very specific set of people who agree with OSI's definition. But language evolves, they don't have a copyright on the term, more people have heard the term "open source" than have heard about the OSI, so "open source" means whatever most people believe it to mean.

Velcro can be upset when people call competitors' hook-and-loop technology Velcro, but the rest of the world don't even know they exist.

And philosophically, I think it's time OSI updates their definition to fit the times. As stated above, I think the guarantee of unfettered commercialization is antithetical to FOSS goals. And again, I'd be glad to be convinced otherwise.

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The whole point of forkability is NOT for unfettered commercialization, it is a user protection. I as a user should be able to take any piece of software and modify it in any way I see fit, and then be able to contribute that back.

If you think that the OSI's definition has anything to do with commercialization (other than explicitly saying that commercializing source code is not prohibited), you have completely misunderstood what open source is about, full stop.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I apologize, I got your comment confused with the other person's who said the ability to commercialize is the important detail FUTO's license is missing. You had said, "they require some form of ability to fork the code, and to be able to do useful things with that fork" which the FUTO license does already explicitly allow, so I assumed by "and do useful things" you also meant "commercialize".

So yeah it sounds like we're in agreement, and the FUTO license is already reasonably "open source".

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Does FUTO's license allow me to maintain my own fork under a different name to offer to fellow users, that is no longer under control of FUTO? I'm not selling (commercializing) it. If not, it is source-available.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 weeks ago

It does allow this,

You may use the software for any purpose.

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.

But hey, way to read the source material before explaining it to someone ;)