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.

    • EzTerry@lemmy.zipEnglish
      4·
      8 hours ago

      First realize what is being talked about is the generally agreed upon open source definition https://opensource.org/osd

      While it seems they have simplified the license removing some reasons it’s not to be considered open source, it’s still restricting commercial uses in the following two restrictions:

      "You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

      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."

      In short open source would only require the software be distributed with source under the same licensed as recieved, thus can’t restrict it to non-commercial, nor prevent the changing of payment details.

      Obviously it’s a reasonably permissive license, and possibly won’t impact you from using it as an end user. It’s just has some restrictions for the creators to request payment, and to prevent third parties profiting off the product. Think Creative Commons, share alike, non-commercial for software. (While most will consider this fair its not quite fully open)

      One reason they went this route was to prevent third parties form distributing their software with ads and using it in systems they are actively attempting to provide alternatives for (ie software that may spy on your system useage/and call home) the non-commercial clause has more teeth than say MIT where it would be relicensed, or GPL that while the software source would need to be provided might still be embedded in a ecosystem.

      • teawrecks
        1·
        32 minutes ago

        Gotcha.

        Yeah, it sounds like it’s not “open source” according to a specific definition set by the OSI. But the term “open source” has grown beyond what they believe it to mean, and the FUTO license seems more than reasonable to me.

        I think the freedom to commercialize worked in the past, but we now live in a time of weaponized commercialization, especially in the mobile world. It seems reasonable to me for them to want to ensure their code is not commercialized in ways that are antithetical to the purpose of the project.

    • parpol@programming.dev
      4·
      8 hours ago

      You have to be able to redistribute commercially, but the FUTO license only allows non-commercially.

      This has no effect on us users so it is essentially just as good as open source, but technically it is not open source.