Open Source

30314 readers

1676 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

145

Is there any proprietary Android app for which you wish there would be an open-source alternative? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

232 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Basically, what the title says. Do you use any app, that is proprietary, but either has no OSS alternatives or they're all not good enough? If there is an alternative, what keeps you from switching?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

FUTO keyboard is proprietary.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It is not. FUTO calls it "source first" which just means "open source but with rules against bad actors". Certainly far from proprietary.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

It is not open source, because it does not meet the definition of open source.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the license doesn't meet the OSD and does not protect four freedoms, then it is not open-source.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It is by FUTO's definition.

Jokes aside, I find that attitude not very healthy. Whether you want to call it open source or not, as I said, it's far from proprietary, and certainly more than just source available. Dismissing it for that reason is quite unreasonable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

FUTO changing the definition of open source to suit their business model is like that time US Congress decided that pizza was a vegetable because it has tomato sauce.

FUTO's EULA may superficially resemble a true free software license (and may be good enough for you, personally) but it fundamentally undermines core tenets of the free software movement in order to preserve their business interests. All pseudo-FOSS licenses (whether of the "ethical" or the "business" variety) do this, because they prioritize the interests of the rightsholder above those of the community and the user. If important free software projects like Linux and Firefox were released under this license the free software world as we know it would not be possible.

As proprietary licenses go, it's certainly far from the worst.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

That was silly yeah because a Tomato is a fruit not a vegetable lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Jokes aside, I find that attitude not very healthy.

Calling a source-available license "not proprietary", this is what not very healthy.

"Source-first" or "fair code" are just a fancy ways to say "proprietary".