upvote
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

reply
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.

reply
Immich doesn't use the FUTO license because they acquired it and it was already under a copyleft open source license.
reply
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.

reply
Alternatively they could ask FUTO for a commercial license.
reply
Maybe, but there are better candidates GrapheneOS is more interested in.
reply
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?
reply