There are numerous issues with the 'privacy-preserving' federated learning models that are used by Google and Apple. They have constantly been called out by privacy researchers and cryptographers due to their misuse of differential privacy. There is very little trust in the privacy-preserving measures that are being used by these companies. This is not to say that these methods are bad in general but in terms of how they are used by Google and Apple, they amount to little more than a PR stunt. There are numerous reconstruction attacks on their privacy protocols as used by things like GBoard.
I think you are being incredibly harsh about the licensing structure, they are simply trying to make sure companies with keyboard apps like Google don't steal their work out from under them by adding in a non-commercial clause. Lots of companies have this Elastic Search License, Business Source License, etc. There are numerous companies who have used permissive licenses only to be horribly burned by companies stealing their work out from underneathe them and they have subsequently used non-OSI approved licenses.
Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours?
They can use whatever license they want, but that choice will affect who will or can use it. From the license:
> You may use or 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.
That means most people can't use this keyboard to write a work email or text message. That's a really restrictive license, and pretty unexpected for a keyboard, to limit what you're allowed to type. Pointing it out doesn't seem harsh.
I think they mean "use the software" as in using the actual source code of the software in some derivative work or as part of some other application, or downloading and redistributing it for a different purpose, and things like that, not using the end-product application. They could stand to be a lot clearer about that, but their whole goal is just to prevent mega-corporations from being able to freeload off their work to make money off their software, not to prevent random people from using their software in certain contexts that might be construed as "commercial" in some sense. They mean not using the software for commercial purposes in the sense of not selling the software, not simply not using it for business emails or something stupid like that.
The maintainer literally responded to someone else making a similar claim in this HN thread to say that this is now the meaning of that license clause. Someone else posted the Cornell Law legal dictionary definition of 'commercial purposes'. It is really annoying that people who write software suddenly think they are legal experts who can make these kinds of ridiculous claims anytime 'licenses' come up. Instead of making stuff up off the top of your head as though it was factual, please defer to experts in the field. On legal issues this is particularly annoying.
> The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Wouldn't a copyleft FOSS license like the AGPLv3 keep companies like Google from stealing their work out from under them too?
> Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours?
AGPL simply means the source of any modifications must be made available. It doesn't stop a company with an overwhelming marketing dept and existing user base from rebranding and providing as their own.
They do, but it's mainly a precautionary measure for them IMO. Too easy to get some AGPL code caught up in some project and then due to its viral nature that entire project would be "tainted", costing them control.
I don't need to see the link, I am aware of what your stance roughly is. I'm saying:
Why are you so intolerant of the freedoms of other people to make their own choices about what license structures are best for them and their needs?
Developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they please. Just because you have a pet category of license structure that you think everyone should use, why can't you be respectful of those who choose other options?
It is essentially you forcing your narrow definition of what you think licenses are and how they should be structured onto everyone else?
Why can't people simply say they understand the various licensing options but they choose one that isn't the one you like after a careful consideration? Are they simply not allowed to have a diffferent opinion than you?
If you make your argument and the maintainer still chooses another license, that is a failure on the part of the FSF to properly sell their mission or elaborate their arguments. Does the fact that someone chose something other than what you prefer mean that you now need to go around evangelizing every time that any non-FOSS license is used?
As a paying customer the answer is that you don't get any features other than a thing saying that you paid. It is similar to donating to Signal Foundation where you don't get some 'new feature' within the Signal app for having paid, you just get a little thing next to your user icon showing that you did. It is a support badge.
How so? Given that the license says you can't "use" it for commercial purposes, as opposed to just that you can't modify or distribute it for commercial purposes, what else would that mean?
I've said this many times but I dislike that I have to make an account before I even know what the product is or if I will like it enough to justify an account. I hunted around for a sec and I could not find anything that would let me see a real demo or example of the product that didn't require making an account.
Doing something like Airtable[0] is much more effective (not affiliated just a product I use), where I can go from the landing page to embedded product demos that require no login in seconds. It would be great to have something embedded like this or more detailed screencaps at least which showcase the product prior to me having to sign in.
I just tried it; looks like AirTable added a login page when you click "Use Table". Previously, I think you could play around with them without the login. I know Ive done it
Interesting comment and felt like I was supposed to find this! My team is actually working on something along those lines so companies can directly embed a "demo-able" version of their product whether its on their website, sales outreach, or share through emails without opening up their actual product to everyone.
Check us out (still in beta but I want to practice what I preach and get my own product on our page once its a bit more polished): https://www.getlancey.com/
As someone with a relative currently going through bankruptcy, I can assure you that every student would not go through this process. It is incredibly difficult, intensive, and horrible process that takes years. It is not pleasant and I think that the idea that it would be utilized in this way by students is totally coming from a place of ignorance of what modern bankruptcy actually entails.
I totally understand that this is an unpleasant and long process, but I think you in turn come from a place of ignorance about what it means to live the best years of your life under hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt. It eats at you, every time you spend money, for decades. It's soul-crushing.
I know people who would GLADLY throw away two years of their life in bankruptcy proceedings if it means they could be free of their crushing student debt.
It should be pointed out that in a country like India or China it IS often the marketplaces legal responsibility to prevent counterfeit merchandise from being sold in their market. If you go into many malls for example there are signs up on the walls with a hotline to report people selling counterfeit merchandise. In India, they have a service you can contact that enforces returns/refunds of any counterfeit item that you purchase from a vendor (though usually mentioning the hotline and threatening to call it is more than enough to convince the vendor to give you a refund).
