GOS is building a text-to-speech system

pizzadequeso

https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2016993343167688981
Anyone has the timeline?
Pls, also make a better keyboard.

Silver

pizzadequeso check out the FUTO keyboard. The project aligns with GOS values, includes speech recognition, and works great.

Delaney

pizzadequeso Anyone has the timeline?

The link you provided already answers this question. GrapheneOS says it will be added to the app store soon.

lackofhumor

pizzadequeso

Among the comments I can see someone talking about security issues related to the AI.
As far as I understand, he is referring to a different kind of technology than what is needed for TTS to work, is it correct?

I admit I am ignorant on this topic, can someone explain it to me?

raccoondad

pizzadequeso its awesome to see honestly, way to much of AI has:

No real function (ai art, most of GPT)

Resource consumption to the point that its training and deployment have destroyed other resources and serious environmental impact.

No source or transparency on training data or its weights

And that its resource requirements make it impossible to actually functionally run on any kind of personally owned hardware.

Seeing GOS make an AI that assumedly doesn't cost a lot of resources & has a very good accessibility based purpose is something I like to see.

I'm really happy to hear it will also be text to speech, vision impaired people will have a lot to get out of that. I'm assuming the TTS model can eventually be used for accessibility features?

GrapheneOS

Silver

The project aligns with GOS values

It's not open source and takes away resources from open source projects. It also doesn't align with our values beyond that.

littlerack

Silver works great

Still, it's typing correction (perception of "precision") and typing prediction dictionaries are noticeably worse comparing to Gboard. Disclaimer - I'm futo's user and not going to switch neither to basic system, nor to gboard.

littlerack

GrapheneOS

Strange

Limitations

You may use the software for any purpose.
You may 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.
You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.
You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the Licensor in the software. Any use of the Licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law.

Sounds pretty open source, not like in FOSS, but still open source.

It will be interesting to verify claim above.
https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Silver

I'm sorry for misleading and for speaking on behalf of others. I hope my reply, written without proper thought, will serve as a warning to everyone else.

nologo

littlerack https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/4648-which-keyboard-is-most-likely-to-replace-the-aosp-keyboard-on-grapheneos/82

mrket

littlerack You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.

This is just a bad license, I am not a legal expert at all but doesn't this in practice prevent you from using parts of the code even for noncommercial purposes if you don't also include parts of the code related to payment? (And implement them in the same way as in the original app, so they can't claim you "obscured" them).

Also, the very first part of the Open Source Definition on the OSI website:

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.

littlerack

nologo I'm responding in scope of "It's not open source" claim by https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/31315-gos-is-building-a-text-to-speech-system/3 which looks factually incorrect.
As per the license, FUTO looks pretty much open source. They don't allow you to re-sell it, but it doesn't make it not open source. Need to re-check opposition to per-book https://opensource.org/licenses (an initiative from only 2006)
There is a difference between being open-source and being FOSS. It's not the same.

W1zardK1ng

littlerack it is source available not open source.

de0u

littlerack As per the license, FUTO looks pretty much open source.

Here is a FUTO blog post in which FUTO explains why they switched from the term "open source" to "source first": https://www.futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/

littlerack

W1zardK1ng
you just stuck with OSI's approach pretending like alternative views FSF don't exist that are as old (if not older than OSI).
OSI reworked DFSG (free software, not open-source) re-labeled it into open-source.
FSF's approach is kinda more robust, as there is FOSS (FUTO is not pretending to be FOSS) and open-source.
Even the naming is ridiculous, the source is open, go modify it for your needs, but it's not FOSS, so you can't consume it like YouTube used ffmpeg.

littlerack

mrket you're referring to OSI that has re-labeled Free software DFSG into open-source. Why not to choose FSF approach (foss is free with commercial re-distribution etc, open-source doesn't necessarily has to be that free), why "only OSI has the right to define what's open-source"?

littlerack

mrket bad license

Wow, "bad license"? What is that at all?)

littlerack

mrket but doesn't this in practice prevent you from using parts of the code even for noncommercial purposes

It's a good question at what % it stops to be the futo keyboard, is it still FUTO with licensing if you've used just graphic artifacts (1% of FUTO) and you're the author for the rest 99% of your keyboard. It's a burden of their licence.

mrket

littlerack you're referring to OSI that has re-labeled Free software DFSG into open-source. Why not to choose FSF approach (foss is free with commercial re-distribution etc, open-source doesn't necessarily has to be that free), why "only OSI has the right to define what's open-source"?

As far as I'm aware the FSF never defined the term open source, instead opposing the use of that term.

From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html:

The official definition of open source software (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.

littlerack

mrket FSF never defined the term open source

It's not accurate. FSF cites definitions from the below.
Please refer to a diagram here, it explains. FUTO is nonfree open source
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en

"User doesn't receive the source code, or receives it under a nonfree license or with no license."

mrket

littlerack FSF/GNU doesn't take the definition of OSI as OSI has just re-labeled DFSG terms and changed "free" software to be "open source" rejecting all the accompanying values and principles as explained by FSF here

Now I know you are either intentionally trying to push a false narrative, or are refusing to read, as I linked the same page in a previous comment and quoted from that page where the FSF literally calls the OSI definition the official one:
mrket

I'm not going to continue this dumb argument, I wanted to clear a misunderstanding when I posted my first comment but this evidently was a mistake as you are refusing to accept basic facts.

userofgos

littlerack It may be useful to read this thread in it's entirety: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14034-gnu-claiming-that-grapheneos-is-partially-non-free/5

mrket

littlerack You misunderstood the diagram, the text you quote describes non-free software.

Further down in the same page:

The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software.

littlerack

userofgos
No, it doesn't, if it starts with "GNU is an entirely unserious organization. The specific claims made about GrapheneOS make no sense"
A disclaimer, I'm calling it Linux myself, though it's only kernel that is Linux. The rest of tools is indeed GNU, so it's correct to say GNU/Linux but that's not the common approach.

"and it appears that at least some of them are binaries without source code" isn't mobile OS full of it due to specific of underlying hardware? Yep, by definition of FSF Go's isn't free, probably nothing will be free apart from Ubuntu Touch and that's fair claim re Libre/free principles.

littlerack

littlerack probably nothing will be free apart from Ubuntu Touch

Nope, UT fails to adhere to free principles as well. Those are kinda strict, so no wonder.