For anyone wondering: the library uses the GPLv3 (good) while the Android keyboard uses the Futo License (shit).

- https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/swipe-library/-/blob/master...

- https://github.com/futo-org/android-keyboard/blob/master/LIC...

cge 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To add to the license complexity, the model uses another FUTO-written license, though it at least does not seem as bad as the license for the keyboard:

https://huggingface.co/futo-org/futo-swipe/blob/main/LICENSE...

▲

rkagerer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's particularly objectionable about the Futo License?

Is it this part?

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

▲

mzajc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The clause you cited as well as the "Termination" section and the non-commercial restriction make it a non-free license. Besides the direct issues with that, it also means all software covered by this license is unsuitable for FOSS-only distributions like Debian or F-Droid. It's not entirely clear to me if the license is copyleft; derivative works have similar problems if so.

As an aside, Eron Wolf, the billionaire behind FUTO, has some rather... out of touch views[0] on the meaning of open source, and seems very committed to diluting the term to mean something closer source-available by removing the most of the rights granted (as defined by FSF, OSI, DFSG and others).

[0]: https://gitlab.futo.org/eron/public/-/wikis/Thoughts-on-Open... - please keep in mind that the RMS quote at the top is taken out of context; he is arguing for more freedom, not less

▲

SXX an hour ago | parent [-]

FUTO also funds some actually open source projects like Immich so not everything about them is bad.

	▲	rpdillon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They also employ Louis Rossman, interestingly. https://consumerrights.wiki/w/FUTO

▲

nine_k 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> shit

It's just a commercial license with very mild terms.

▲

copper-float an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah, honestly. I love open source as much as the next guy, but I don't understand why people are so up in arms about this. The license feels pretty reasonable.

The source code is fully available, none of the features are paywalled. They only prohibit you from taking their code and reselling it.

If you take a look at the Play Store, there are thousands of instances where open source projects are lazily renamed and sold for $5 or $10. It's the definition of scummy, pathetic, worthless behavior, and I'm glad the license prevents those kinds of leeches from succeeding.

I know this isn't the only case, but it's the majority of cases. So I have no problem with their license at all.

	▲	tadfisher 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The license doesn't prevent those leeches from succeeding. They will republish your app, whether it is fully proprietary or licensed under the GPLv3, and neither Google nor Apple will respond to takedown requests for apps. We get many reports of this behavior in an Android developer community I help moderate, it's pretty obvious there are a few known actors doing this with hundreds of apps, and the stores don't care. So no, the license doesn't matter.