jeinzi

https://umap.openstreetmap.de/en/

Great idea, that's what I would probably do as well if I wanted to make a commercial game.

Just remember, if you want something to be "Open Source" or "Free Software", the license can't prohibit commercial use [0][1]. If you really want others to be able to continue maintaining the project after you have stopped, they need to have permission to recoup their costs for servers, physical copies and to get paid for their development time. (Open Source) development needs to be financially sustainable; and if that is forbidden for future developers, it's not a community project anymore, i.e. not Open Source.

Also, if by "attribution, no commercial use" you mean some Creative Commons license, they explicitly discourage use of their licenses for software [3].

[0] https://opensource.org/osd

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling

[3] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

It can't be included in the official F-Droid repos, as it is not Open Source.

It's hardly better than any other proprietary software as the FUTO Temporary License does not allow users to make modifications and share them with non-programmers. They could include ads or spyware and no one would be allowed to strip that out and share the result with others.

They also clearly forbid redistribution "directed towards [...] monetary compensation". But F-Droid has to be compensated for their server costs as well, and they ask for donations as they should be. That's why limiting commercial redistribution alone is a huge issue that would keep it from ever being called "Open Source" or "Free Software".

It can't be included in the official F-Droid repos, as it is not Open Source.

It's hardly better than any other proprietary software as the FUTO Temporary License does not allow users to make modifications and share them with non-programmers. They could include ads or spyware and no one would be allowed to strip that out and share the result with others.

They also clearly forbid redistribution "directed towards [...] monetary compensation". But F-Droid has to be compensated for their server costs as well, and they ask for donations as they should be. That's why limiting commercial redistribution alone is a huge issue that would keep it from ever being called "Open Source" or "Free Software".

I've used it quite extensivly, big fan. It asks for further details on objects that have already been mapped, which also reveals things that don't exist anymore. It turns mapping into a really fun game with currently 163 different quests. The app also regularly asks you to verify opening hours or confirm the existence of certain objects. That being said, I almost always use it in conjunction with a real map editor, to add new stuff I find or to make more complex edits.

What's missing from the existing ones?

There are other fast charging standards than Power Delivery. USB Battery Charging defines that when the data lines are shorted, a device can draw more current (up to 1.5A), but still at 5V. QuickCharge on the other hand uses the data lines to negotiate higher voltages, so an A-to-C cable can't protect you from that.

For Power Delivery, higher voltages are negotiated using the CC (configuration channel) pins. If you use an A-to-C cable, the A side does not have the CC pins and therefore you can't get more than 5V.

Have you checked what voltage arrives on the board if you use a regular USB-C charger? Maybe the headphones negotiate and need a higher voltage than 5V. Does it charge with only 5V supplied? (could be forced by using an A-to-C cable in case of Power Delivery)

That's what I've been using for a few years now, with SimpleCalendar (soon Fossify) on my phone. Didn't have any problems yet.

Kern ist Blähung! --Bogennutzer

Das stimmt auch, freie Weichware darf natürlich kommerziell vertrieben werden. Aber die nullte Freiheit ist, dass eine solche Anwendung zu jedem Zweck eingesetzt werden darf. Es darf also kein Unterschied gemacht werden zwischen privatem und kommerziellem Einsatz, letzterer darf also nicht ausgeschlossen werden, das meinte ich.

Den Quellcode darf man übrigens genauso verkaufen wie die kompilierten Programme. Aber es gibt in der GPL ein paar Einschränkungen bezüglich des Preises den man verlangen darf, wenn man Kunden erst nur die Binärdatei ausgehändigt hat und die dann im Anschluss ihr Recht auf die Soße einfordern.