FUTO just launched their privacy focused keyboard app. I know there have been quite a few posts about keyboard recommendations, so this might be worth checking out if you’re not happy with your current one.
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.44K Posts
- 57.6K Comments
- Modlog
Source available ≠ open-source
Ah. Of course. Something being open source doesn’t make it open source. It all makes sense now thank you for clarifying.
That also wasn’t technically a response to my comment, it was an ideological defense mechanism to avoid addressing the content of the license.
Calling source available an open source is like calling shareware an open culture.
Yeah yeah, it’s open for everyone… For not for list of small but still exceptions…
You still shouldn’t dismiss these sorts of licenses as “free software” has done an alright job for user freedoms but not getting developers compensated for their efforts—which is why licenses like these pop up sharing the source code, but not letting their work be exploited.
May you explain how it is OSS when the license Section 2.1 doesn’t grant me the right to modify the code?
If the license doesn’t meet the OSD, then it isn’t open-source, but just source-available. You are welcome.
It was. I pointed out, that FTL is a proprietary license. Because: «Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code» © OSI
Yeah I don’t agree with the osd being the only approach to being open source. Turns out people have differing opinions on that. You’re welcome.
It wasn’t a response to my comment because you didn’t respond to my comment. You said is proprietary. I point out that it’s not a terrible license. Then you resort to a sound bite non response.
You could have pointed out for example that ftl 3.2 and 4.1 are pretty shitty limitations to impose.
Well, it isn’t the only one. FSF also has requirements for free-software licenses and FTL doesn’t meet them.
I was answering that statement: «does not appear to hide the code behind any proprietary shielding», 'cause it does.