Open Source

30218 readers

368 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]

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]

124 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] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I went with FUTO Keyboard. It's the only keyboard that ticks all my boxes to replace GBoard so far.

I wish the swiping predictions were a bit better though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Does the futo keyboard allow you to paste content yet?

I briefly used it but found the lack of content pasting too much of a hindrabce.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Has options for pasting, and even a clipboard history feature? Although have not enabled that or tested it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

FUTO keyboard is proprietary.

[–] [email protected] 1 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] 2 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] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 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] 0 points 2 weeks 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".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

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