It is accurate for me to say that the FUTO license is open-source according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term, which focused on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code, but made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation.
If you say “FUTO is not an OSI approved open-source license since it does not conform to their Open Source Definition” - you are also 100% correct.
When one implies that the FUTO license is not open source, without further clarification, such as adding “according to OSI” then the accuracy of the statement is less clear.
It is accurate for me to say that the FUTO license is open-source according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term, which focused on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code, but made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation.
If you say “FUTO is not an OSI approved open-source license since it does not conform to their Open Source Definition” - you are also 100% correct.
When one implies that the FUTO license is not open source, without further clarification, such as adding “according to OSI” then the accuracy of the statement is less clear.