I agree FUTO is the best right now but it's not open source so they won't.

The source is here: https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime

Featured prominently in the "Source Code" container on https://keyboard.futo.tech/

AFAIK everything FUTO makes is open source? I haven't seen a counter-example (I have not looked hard though!), and https://futo.tech/about claims the following:

>All FUTO-funded projects are expected to be open source or develop a plan to eventually become so. No effort will ever be taken to hide from the people what their computers are doing, to limit how they use them, or to modify their behavior through their software.

▲

mrob 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From the LICENSE file:

https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE...

>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.

Violates clause 3 (Derived Works) and clause 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) of the Open Source Definition [0].

>You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

Violates clause 1 (Free Redistribution) and clause 6.

>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.

Violates clause 3.

It is a "source available" license, not Open Source.

[0] https://opensource.org/osd

	▲	Groxx an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, yeah, agreed - "source available" fits that much better. I'm pretty sure that's the same for immich (which is also from FUTO). Thank you for the details! That lays it out nicely for anyone else passing through.

▲

idle_zealot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE...

It is not open source. They use a custom source available license. There's no way any Android distribution would include it. A layman's reading is that FUTO could claim license violation on account of the distribution accepting donations (non-commercial use only) and there's a weird clause about not accusing FUTO of patent infringement.

	▲	mitxela 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Alternatively they could ask FUTO for a commercial license.

▲

jazzyjackson 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, they are adhering to a definition of open that includes free as in liberty, so licensing matters. What good is it to read the source if I don’t have rights to modify and redistribute?

▲

wolvoleo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]