threwawasy1228

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

I think that is a ridiculously incorrect and bad faith interpretation of the license clauses.

Absolutely, you could get some great value for that on ebay, or grailed.com

How much do you weigh? That sounds close to right for most people I think.

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.