Source availability is necessary but not sufficient for 2 of the 4 freedoms.

Thankfully Immich is protected against rugpulls (i.e. becoming proprietary) by virtue of it not requiring a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), so FUTO doesn’t even own the copyrights to the code. Therefore, if anyone is suspicious of FUTO’s influence over the project, they can simply fork it (and I imagine someone will)

But if you have something doing face detection I would hope it’s stored locally and not sent to a “cloud” no matter who runs it.

“good” is subjective but FUTO’s software is non-free. Their attempts to openwash their proprietary license is enough of a red flag.

No, he was just a talking head that they hired a while ago. According to some in this thread he’s no longer with them today, but I don’t have a source for that.

In fairness, this is an issue with YouTube itself. It seems to take any opportunity it can to push you down a right-wing pipeline.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-of-youtube-comments-shows-how-its-turning-people-onto-the-alt-right/

“FULU” is a consumer rights organization iirc. The name sounds like a spinoff or sister organization to FUTO, but I don’t think there’s an official relationship.

FUTO has always been sus, but privacy redditors gave them a pass because of Rossmann’s involvement.

Blocking internet access doesn’t magically turn proprietary software into free software.

I’ve always been an outspoken skeptic of FUTO (check post history) and their bizarre campaign against free software, but I didn’t know they were this bad. Yikes

LineageOS user here, so nothing will change for me. Perhaps in the long-term Google might kill off AOSP for good, in which case I’ll seriously consider a so-called real Linux device. Cautiously optimistic about the FSF’s Librephone project, which right now is attempting to reverse engineer blobs in Android devices.

I already have a Pinephone sitting around so maybe I’ll re-flash Mobian on it and play around with it. In the long term my ideal distro would be Guix or some Guix derivative.

Waydroid isn’t an “emulator” or a fully independent thing like Wine. It runs a full Android system in a container. It’s no more or less dependent on Google than AOSP itself is.

Just because it’s a libre phone, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a linux phone.

Likewise, a so-called “Linux phone” isn’t necessarily a libre phone, either. But, I don’t care about Linux, I care about freedom, so a LibrePhone is important regardless of what Linux fans think of it, and if it is truly worthy of the word libre, it will be able to run your so-called “real Linux.”

As the top comment on the Hacker News thread notes,

Cloudflare clearly wants to move us to a future where only approved browsers are allowed to access the web… an independent open source web browser is obviously against that ethos.

I’m suspicious on that basis alone.

Putting a proprietary app into a web page doesn’t make it not proprietary. And, if it’s using some web server to replace the built in radio, it may be Service as a Software Substitute too.

Being on Github doesn’t guarantee that something is free software. In this case though it is, under the Apache 2.0 License: https://github.com/KeybeeKeyboard/KB-androidApplication/blob/main/LICENSE

This does not look to be free software. Where is the source code? I found a page on google play store that says “contains ads.”

There have been efforts to create free rebuilds of the SDK: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/open-source-android-development-tools/30599/136

I will preface this with my usual disclaimer on such topics: I do not believe in intellectual property (that is, the likening of thought to physical possessions). I do not think remixing is a sin and I largely agree with the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s take that “AI training” may largely be fair use. So, I don’t think so-called “generative AI” is inherently evil, however in practice I think it is very often used for evil today.

The most obvious example is, of course, the threat to the work force. “AI” is pitched as a tool that can replace human workers and “wipe out entire categories of human jobs.” Ethical issues aside, “AI” as it exists today is not capable of doing what its evangelists sell it as. “AI chat bots” do not know, but they can give off a very convincing impression of knowledge.

“AI” is also used as a tool to pollute the web with worse-than-worthless garbage. At best it is meaningless and at worst it is actively harmful. I would actually say machine generated text is worse than imagery here, because it feels almost impossible to do a web search without running into some LLM generated blog spam.

Creators of “AI” systems use scraper bots to collect data for training. I do not necessarily believe this is evil per se, but again - these bots are not well behaved. They cause real problems for real human users, far beyond “stealing jpegs.” There is a sense of Silicon Valley entitlement here - we can do whatever we want and deal with the consequences later, or never.

I have long held that a tool, like any human creation, is imbued with the values and will of its creators, and thus must serve both the creator and the user as its masters (The software freedom movement is largely an attempt at reconciling these interests, by empowering users with the ability to change their tools to do their bidding). In the case of “Generative AI” it is very often the case that both the creators and users of these tools intend them for evil. We often make the mistake of attributing agency to these computer programs, so as to minimize the human element (perhaps, in order to create a “man vs machine” narrative). We speak of “AI” as if it just woke up one day, a la Skynet, in order to steal our jpegs and put us out of work and generate mountains of webslurry. Make no mistake, however - the problems with “AI” are human problems. Humans created these systems in order for other humans to use, in order to inflict harm to other humans. “AI slop” was created specifically for an environment in which human-generated slop already ran amok, because the web as it existed then (as it exists today) rewards the generation of slop.

Intellectual property is made up bullshit. You can’t “steal” a jpeg by making a copy of it, and the idea that creating something based on or inspired by something else is somehow “stealing” it is quite frankly preposterous.

The sooner we as a society disabuse ourselves of this brainworm the better.

Edit: I have very mixed feelings about so-called generative AI, so please do not take this as a blanket endorsement of the technology - but rather a challenge on the concept of “stealing intellectual property,” which I unequivocally do not believe in.

How much is some? Can a usable, fully-free version be made without those non-free components? Given that the UI is the thing that mediates user interaction with the OS, I would suggest that a proprietary UI is in fact an issue.