this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
21 points (73.3% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1477 readers
45 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.

Some acronyms you might see.

Relevant comms

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus
21
privacy@lemmy.ml mods remove thread about a more private android keyboard under a post about a not private android keyboard. (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by als@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://lemmy.ml/post/35472063

The original post is about a supposedly privacy focused keyboard that sends your voice and messages to OpenAI for speech to text. I posted saying I use the FUTO Keyboard as it's open source and does voice to text on-device. There unsued a discussion about if the FUTO Keyboard is open source, as the license prohibits commercial use. After people sharing thoughts on this for a day, the mods removed the thread for being offtopic and promoting proprietary software. Even if you think that the license prohibiting commercial use makes it not open source, it certainly doesn't make it proprietary.

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 39 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Hi, that was me. Some relevant context is that uninformed FUTO fans regularly overwhelm discussion threads in spaces dedicated to free/libre open source software, arguing about if FUTO's license (which prohibits distributing modified versions of apps) meets definitions which it clearly does not. As I wrote in a previous PTB thread about my removal of FUTO misinformation/advocacy from !opensource@lemmy.ml:

I'm pretty sure that Futo's (now recanted) position that they were open source (despite the term having a clear definition which is very internationally recognized and which Futo's license obviously does not meet) was an intentional marketing gimmick - "there is no such thing as bad publicity" and every time a bunch of people are arguing about them there is a chance they'll get more customers (some of whom might even believe it is open source).

In this latest case, I did consider removing the whole thread, but since it is generally raising awareness about /e/ OS's privacy-hostile behavior (rather than promoting it) i decided to leave it.

edit/p.s.: re one of your deleted comments saying that the license at least meets the cambridge dictionary's definition of open source: actually, no, it does not meet that definition either.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 9 points 2 weeks ago

This comment is articulate and respectful in a way that in my personal experience and posts seen on this sub is unconventional for a .ml mod

Genuine kudos, keep it up !

[–] MourningDove@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This might be the first time I’ve seen an actual mod from .ml take action. All this time, I was thinking you were all basically neutered by the admins and just figureheads to provide the illusion of fairness.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He is an admin.

[–] MourningDove@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well, there goes that. lol… and look! A.ml admin here to to toss another under the bus! Go figure.

[–] SwooshBakery624@programming.dev 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I posted saying I use the FUTO Keyboard as it's open source

It is not.

Even if you think that the license prohibiting commercial use makes it not open source, it certainly doesn't make it proprietary.

It does. If the license doesn't meet the OSD and the FSD, then it is proprietary, because,

“Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software.” - Categories of Free and Nonfree Software.

YDI.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 22 points 2 weeks ago

This is a pretty clear example of YDI. The license for that keyboard is very clearly not open source.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 weeks ago

YDI, should have read the sidebar. If it doesn't allow for the four essential freedoms or whatever the OSI definition is, then it's proprietary software.

Source available proprietary software != free/libre software!

[–] Blaze@lazysoci.al 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

~~Seems to be a misunderstanding on their part about the license?~~

Edit: seems like the mods indeed checked the licence

In any case, !privacy@programming.dev is the second most active community on the topic

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Seems to be a misunderstanding on their part about the license?

No, unlike most FUTO proponents, I have actually read and understood the license :)

[–] Blaze@lazysoci.al 5 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for clarifying!

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

I read and understood the license, I just wasn't aware that restricting commercial use makes it proprietary

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago

I use Heliboard, an actually open source keyboard

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Perhaps "source available" is a more apt term for this kind of license

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Source available is indeed the correct term for this type of license, but FUTO doesn't like it because that category also includes other licenses which impose different restrictions than they do. So, they now are calling theirs "source first" instead. 🤷

At least they stopped calling it open source!

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't understand the nuance in licensing but how is this not open source?

"Allow users to see the source code of all of our software.

Ensure that you can modify the source code for your own use, and redistribute it."

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Their actual license includes these points which are not mentioned in the blog post you're quoting from:

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.

and

you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor

Among other things, these restrictions effectively mean that nobody has the right to fork the software, so anyone contributing to it is doing volunteer work exclusively for FUTO. When FUTO goes out of business the software can/will no longer be maintained (unless they decide to re-license it under a FLOSS license before they dissolve their legal entity).

If the right to fork seems unimportant, I recommend reading this informative text about why it is one of the essential freedoms which (real) FLOSS licenses are designed to protect.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you could fork and remove a license, then GPL would be meaningless. You can fork but companies can't sell their code.

They don't want other companies to profit off the code. Maybe there scamming in there but on the surface it's a worthy goal.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

did you read the text about "Forking and Free Software" on the page I linked in my comment you're replying to?

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

"Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. "

Which is what that software does. Which is why I'm confused.

Are they scammers that claim to publish their code but don't?

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 weeks ago

The four essential freedoms

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1]

  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

People can't change and distribute it under their license

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They said you can. The restriction is that you can't make money off it. Which doesn't seem against the spirit of open source. Nothing in open source requires that you give your code to corporations for free.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Please look up the (A)GPL and stop helping Futo with their open washing

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Come on, there's no need to be hostile. Look at my history. I've never heard of them before. Nor am I an expert on the various licenses.

Agpl is stronger about forcing release of forked source code but doesn't say anything about commercial use. What is an existing GPL variant that prevents commercial use?

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Hey, sorry for coming off harsh. It's just that I've had enough with people claiming Futo is somehow the good guy here. Preventing commercial use is against everything FLOSS and basically makes forks impossible and any contribution to the project meaningless...

Also "commercial use" is incredibly broad, in Germany e.g. all commercial websites must have an imprint and IIRC some court ruled that even private websites must have one as well, so there is that. Futos' licensing is really a scummy move akin to MongoDBs SSPL.

The idea behind the GPL is that any change you make has to be available as source code to the users in addition to the four essential freedoms. The GPLv3 patched some exploits (LOL) regarding proprietary devices (ab)using free/libre software and the AGPL patches the "providing a service over a website" loophole which is not covered by the vanilla GPL.

This page by Codeberg has a nice decision tree regarding choosing an actually free/libre license and is also a good read in general
https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Preventing commercial use is against everything FLOSS

I upload 3d models to printables (prusa's online library). The uploads have a license checkbox list: free to download, free to modify, must list original author in remix, and/or no commercial reuse. You check off whatever you want.

Preventing commercial use is not against OpenSource. It's origin was because of commercial abuse. The OpenSource definition https://opensource.org/osd says no discrimination in use by businesses. It does not say you must allow companies to take your work and sell it for profit. Using open source software is not the same as selling it.

Creative commons has a non commercial license.

https://ufal.github.io/public-license-selector/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Creative+Commons+Attribution-NonCommercial+%28CC%2Clicense+that+bans+commercial+use.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Creative commons has a non commercial license.

The Creative Commons website explains why licenses which use their non-commercial or no-derivatives clauses are non-free.

In 2009, seven years after they released their licenses, they did a study which found that users and creators have substantially varied understandings about which types of uses are prohibited and allowed by the NC clause.

For instance, an NC work can be included in third parties' YouTube videos which Google might put advertisements on (as long as the uploaders don't monetize the video themselves), but the work cannot be included in Wikipedia (because contributions to Wikipedia must be freely licensed, which means allowing commercial use).

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_license

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Even the thing you linked directly contradicts what you said in like the 2nd paragraph

  1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah I was completely wrong. I had always assumed that corporate exploitation was allowed particularly with the BSD license that doesn't put any restrictions on use. I had no idea corporate exploitation was required by the definition of Open Source.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

The four essential freedoms

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago

Source available proprietary software

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

"proprietary bullshit"

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I suppose I was today years old when I learned that the general consensus among software people is that proprietary software means software with any restrictions, not just software which is entirely black-boxed.

I was unaware of any ongoing conflict about FUTO and thought that it was a widely supported alternative

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago

It's a common mistake. Many people don't understand the difference between open source software and source available. I didn't until i joined lemmy. But the open source software is defined by giving certain rights to the developers and/or end-users. When someone publishes the code but doesn't fulfill the open source criteria then it is just more generically called "source available". Many companies are interested in open-washing their license as being open source since it takes advantage of people not knowing the difference but having heard good things about open source software.

Consider a case where you have an actual open source project and there is some controversy like making the code closed source and selling off to some startup. You could then take that code and make your own fork of the project. Some open source licenses might restrict you to using the same license the project initially used but you'll still be able to salvage the product from being monetized to hell or whatever shit they were trying to do. If the code was source available then there would've been extra restrictions in place and those might have prevented you from using the code at all.

Or even worse - i release code that detects with 100% accuracy the exact time of death someone will have, but when i release the code i don't attach any license to it. This means I'm actually reserving all rights for myself even if i did put the code out there for people to see. This is actually even worse than "source available" because people can't legally do anything with it except look at it.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -4 points 2 weeks ago

Futo is not open source but it is a fine product.

Which is what I said in that thread and my comment was also removed.

This is a bad faith behavior IMHO

We really should stop commenting on ml ran subs IMHO

People say fake shit all the time without having their comment censored.

There is nothing wrong with futo being thrown in along with Foss keyboards. It should be disclosed that it is not fpsss and normies can make their own decisions.