“Oh yea, anything FUTO is not open source. It’s merely source available”
I disagree and so does FUTO but in the interest of making nice with the community, they now call their software license “source first.”
Personally, I think of their license as open-source for humans, but not the for-profit legal fictions we call corporations. I am ok with that.
Why does the OSI get to dictate the one true definition of open source?
OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 and notably she is not even a member of OSI. They just co-opted the term from her.
OSI was founded by still secret charter members and large corporate sponsors such as Google, Apple and Microsoft who make Billions off the back of free open source software while giving back almost nothing.
FUTO was founded as an alternative to the tech oligopolies and their software is licensed as open-source except that they require separate licensing for commercial use, specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants.
I disagree and so does FUTO but in the interest of making nice with the community, they now call their software license “source first.”
Personally, I think of their license as open-source for humans, but not the for-profit legal fictions we call corporations. I am ok with that.
Why does the OSI get to dictate the one true definition of open source?
OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 and notably she is not even a member of OSI. They just co-opted the term from her.
OSI was founded by still secret charter members and large corporate sponsors such as Google, Apple and Microsoft who make Billions off the back of free open source software while giving back almost nothing.
FUTO was founded as an alternative to the tech oligopolies and their software is licensed as open-source except that they require separate licensing for commercial use, specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants.