[okso]

Finally a voice recognition keyboard that works well on Android and offline! I just tested it and the quality in English at least is great.

Too bad that the license is not open-source, I prefer donating to projects that are open-source even if asking for a fee to use (ex: Netguard, MyExpenses).

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Have you tried Sayboard? It's not perfect but it only has to compete against Google's default voice recognition to win for me so it's doing great.

[MrOwen]

?? https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime

Isn't that the whole point of futo? Paid for open source software?

[josephcsible]

It's not open-source, just source-available. Check the license.

[rdedev]

Is there a tangible difference between source first / source available and open source? Afaik if you are just a normal developer and not a company it's pretty much the same?

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Is there a tangible difference between source first / source available and open source?

Yes.

Source First: https://gitlab.futo.org/alex/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE....

Open Source: https://opensource.org/osd

Notably, Source First does not allow for the software to be used commercially ("You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes...") whereas Open Source does allow commercial use ("The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software..." and "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.").

[olah_1]

Thanks for the clarification. Source First is obviously better because it prevents big corporations from ripping off small developers and profiting from it.

[ignoramous]

> a normal developer and not a company it's pretty much the same

Microsoft shares Windows codebase with its partners. Is there a tangible difference between it and Android?

Also, as a developer, why would you volunteer for a "source first" codebase? I don't see any point since you can't really fork it, in the traditional sense.

[ImJamal]

Anybody can view the source code of Android and make their own version.

Only a limited number of people can view the Windows code and nobody can make their own version of Windows.

[lowkey]

Correction, it isn’t open-source according to the definition of opensource.org - an organization that famously did not invent the term but just co-opted it and whose primary source of funding comes from private closed-source tech giants such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft - a clear and very serious conflict of interest.

[Brian_K_White]

You keep going on about them not inventing the term, as though that matters.

They din't invent it, they proposed a formal definition, and other people agreed, and have been using the term to mean that meaning for decades by now.

You can't change the meaning to suit yourself at this point after other people have already used it. That would be changing other people's words. You can't very well accuse OSI or anyone else of the crime of presumtion while being willing to do that.

"did not invent the term" is just a totally pointless and silly thing to even think about or say. It's as silly as saying that Websters didn't invent the words they write down definitions for.

[lowkey]

It’s a fair point that “did not invent the term” is not a valid criticism and I retract my earlier comment.

I still stand by my comment that the OSI is an organization that profits directly from significant funding by closed-source big tech players and therefore has a strong conflict of interest in their definition of open-source according to their Open Source Definition.

The OSD is defined specifically to ensure that open source code, except GPL can be commercially exploited and effectively become closed-source by big tech.

Famously, Christine Peterson the woman who did invent the term, defined "open source software” in 1998 as software which included the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code.

She made no claims about the ability to commercially exploit open source software without compensating the original author(s). Those terms were added later by the OSI definition.

I do think it would be more accurate to claim that software with terms limiting commercial exploitation is “open-source” per the original definition, but is not in compliance with the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)

[marcinzm]

The FUTO license does not allow for the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. It allows it for certain groups and activities but that is the same as not allowing it.

> You may use or 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.

This severely limits the freedom to modify the software or even use it as only certain ways of modifying it are allowed.

> Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.

This limits the ability to modify the software in any situation.

> I do think it would be more accurate to claim that software with terms limiting commercial exploitation is “open-source” per the original definition, but is not in compliance with the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)

No it wouldn't be. You can read all the things said regarding free software for more history since open source was per it's original definition merely a renaming of free software.

[yencabulator]

You can argue against OSI as much as you want, but this license isn't compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) either.

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines

[josephcsible]

> The OSD is defined specifically to ensure that open source code, except GPL can be commercially exploited and effectively become closed-source by big tech.

That is a real problem, but the solution is to move towards GPL, not away from open source.