I mean, it's a FOSS community and the OP asked for FOSS. With FOSS the user has the four freedoms, the first of which (freedom zero) is unconditional. If something is FOSS it's taken for granted that you can "run the program as you wish, for any purpose."

In other words part of the point of FOSS is that the user doesn't have to worry about whether the rightsholder approves of their use of the software. They have a copy and so they can use it because it is free software.

Edit: I remembered the keyboard specifically has an exception allowing for commercial use, but the point stands. If something is described as FOSS, open source, or free software then the expectation is that the user has those four freedoms. I think it's worth it to stand up for the free software definition on principle even though I imagine most of us wouldn't need to sell copies of a keyboard app.

Personally, yeah.

To me, it's a matter of: It is not open-source, so if the FUTO company starts enshittifying it, then no one's going to fork it to undo that, because no one wants that proprietary license on their project, whether they intend to distribute it commercially or not.

Obviously, I could just switch to a different keyboard app, if that happens, but in my experience, it also means that no one has their eyeballs on the source code to notice them enshittifying and they're just generally more likely to sneak shit in, because they know no one's going to fork.

But I'm also not either a fan of open-source software when it's developed by a company, for similar reasons. For example, Google puts so much dev capacity into Android and has the infrastructure to uniquely benefit from it, so at best you'll get soft-forks. No one can afford to do a proper hard-fork and fix the permission system, for example.