While I fully agree with you, there are several issues here:
- the word "free" has several meanings in English, i.e. "free" as in "no charge" and "free" as in "freedom" (free access, free software, etc.) - the answer given there does not indicate which one of those is meant.
- patents have most likely been granted in countries that recognise them - this does not prevent from the patent being put into public domain. However, the second sentence in question 17 seems to indicate that the license bears a fee, which also contradicts one of the meanings of "free above.
Either way, the Q&A/FAQ is full of marketing mumble.
The sentence itself implies libre, not being patent-encumbered. Donating a great innovation to humanity means making the knowledge freely available for use. It does not mean using the knowledge to create a product and then making this product freely available.
thank you, random stranger, for sharing your gnu/extremism.
while i am in no way defending software patents (which I don't like at all), i find the full-frontal attack attitude that you and many other gnu/zealots exhibit towards random strangers on the internet so infuriating that i am writing this comment here to let you know that people like you are exactly what prevents me (and many others) from getting involved in some free (libre) software projects.
thanks so much for your contribution to the advancement of libre software.
My comment has absolutely nothing to do with preaching free software or even trying to push people to make their software available under a free license. You could even take out the word "libre" from my comment, if it irks you that much. The meaning is the same. And the meaning is simply my interpretation of that sentence. After having read that sentence, the last thing I expected was for it to be patented and I was so sure of that, that I did also feel it was dishonest to put that sentence on the webpage.
Yes, I generally would prefer for people to publish their software as libre, especially if it does not interfere with their way of making money as is the case here,
yes, I was somewhat annoyed that I could not actually try this keyboard out, since yes, I am enough of a free software zealot for my personal use that I only have F-Droid installed and
yes, I do actually find it unacceptable for a keyboard app on Android to not at least allow its source code to be inspected, as once enabled it can read everything you type from personal conversations down to passwords and Android does fuckall to prevent a keyboard app from just sending all of that to somewhere on the internet,
but none of that was expressed in my previous comment.
Free can imply free as in speech (libre) or free as in beer (gratis). Libre does not imply not being patent encumbered either, it refers to the software license.
>The sentence itself implies libre, not being patent-encumbered
Nope. It is used as an adverb, for which the dominant meaning is 'without cost'.
And you know this. You are just here spinning. I love libre software, but when you abuse language to make a political point it disgusts me just as much when I hear the words 'pro-life' or 'job-creators'.
If you want to claim you continuously confuse 'free' as as an adverb for patent free gnu stuff you are either an idiot or disingenuous
- the word "free" has several meanings in English, i.e. "free" as in "no charge" and "free" as in "freedom" (free access, free software, etc.) - the answer given there does not indicate which one of those is meant.
- patents have most likely been granted in countries that recognise them - this does not prevent from the patent being put into public domain. However, the second sentence in question 17 seems to indicate that the license bears a fee, which also contradicts one of the meanings of "free above.
Either way, the Q&A/FAQ is full of marketing mumble.