@@ -8,10 +8,12 @@ While conceptualizing FUTO, my first thought was always "Why hasn't open source
...
@@ -8,10 +8,12 @@ While conceptualizing FUTO, my first thought was always "Why hasn't open source
After moving to Austin, and in the aftermath of some gross abuses by the Tech Oligopoly, I finally started finding people who also cared about this problem in 2021. Perhaps I should have found them sooner but I find WoW more fun than networking at alcohol parties. I still had never heard of the OSI or knew about their definition.
After moving to Austin, and in the aftermath of some gross abuses by the Tech Oligopoly, I finally started finding people who also cared about this problem in 2021. Perhaps I should have found them sooner but I find WoW more fun than networking at alcohol parties. I still had never heard of the OSI or knew about their definition.
We started out by making substantial grants to open source projects and funding open source companies. Bad results.
We started out by making substantial grants to open source projects and funding open source companies. It's fair to say we got bad results. I determined that I could pour everything including my last penny into open source and still bareley make progress solving the problem.
We've since pivoted to building software internally. FUTO now exists to make things good for programmers who want to create non-abusive software. We're getting better results.
We've since pivoted to building software internally. FUTO now exists to make things good for programmers who want to create non-abusive software. We're getting better results.
We launched Grayjay in October 2023 and all of a sudden I have to learn all about the semantic arguments going on in the "open source community". Many people feel like we have mislead them.
We have determined that while "open source" still applies to what we're doing, it's caused confusion because the OSI claims ownership of the term. While I regret any miscommunication on our part, I don't think the OSI should have continued to pretend like they owned the term after they lost their trademark. They should have pivoted to a new term that they could trademark if they wanted to behave this way.
We have determined that while "open source" still applies to what we're doing, it's caused confusion because the OSI claims ownership of the term. While I regret any miscommunication on our part, I don't think the OSI should have continued to pretend like they owned the term after they lost their trademark. They should have pivoted to a new term that they could trademark if they wanted to behave this way.
We have also determined that "open source", by itself, isn't working. The problems created by the Tech Oligopoly are getting worse. I know FUTO will fail if we abide by the OSI's definition. I'm actually not even sure if the OSI's goals align with our goals given how the Tech Oligopoly influences their decision making. Hence we have to change things. https://gitlab.futo.org/eron/public/-/wikis/The-Source-First-Definition
We have also determined that "open source", by itself, isn't working. The problems created by the Tech Oligopoly are getting worse. I know FUTO will fail if we abide by the OSI's definition. I'm actually not even sure if the OSI's goals align with our goals given how the Tech Oligopoly influences their decision making. Hence we have to change things. https://gitlab.futo.org/eron/public/-/wikis/The-Source-First-Definition
