Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alex-futo 720 days ago
I'm the person responsible for this project and this is absolutely not correct. The clause was not written to restrict this kind of use of the keyboard, and it would be ridiculous if we ever pursued anyone over this. You can type anything you want with our keyboard. You can type out a million-dollar app that competes with us. It's not like we would have any way of knowing, because the keyboard doesn't connect to the internet.

That clause is more intended for a situation where, for example, a phone manufacturer wants to include our app as a default option. That is the kind of commercial use we would prefer to negotiate and sign a special agreement for.
4 comments
borgbean 720 days ago
I believe you, but the text seems pretty unambiguous:

> You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes

When one speaks of 'using' software, only one thing really comes to mind. Seems like an easy fix.

link
cge 719 days ago
While it was not your intention for the license to be interpreted in that way, as written, reading the text, it does seem like the most obvious interpretation. There are also other source-available licenses where it is the intended interpretation: while niche, I'm reminded of the license on nupack.org. It seems like clarifying this in the license text would be a good idea.
link
thrtythreeforty 719 days ago
You have discovered why licenses are hard! The text of this license conflicts with your intent.

Wrote this comment with FUTO and it's pretty nice; it's certainly the first one I'm considering using over Gboard (because frankly the feature set of many FOSS keyboards is quite bad). While not FOSS, FUTO is a nice step up in terms of philosophy and actual license from most proprietary keyboards, with the exception of the commercial use restriction which really made me think twice about it.

link
josephcsible 719 days ago
I trust you that it's not what you meant, and that you wouldn't sue over it, but not that any potential future copyright holder wouldn't (see, e.g., https://gavinhoward.com/2022/01/the-law-of-strict-licenses/). Could you make it less ambiguous by chasing the license to only restrict commercial distribution rather than commercial use?
link