@@ -12,6 +12,6 @@ We started out by making substantial grants to open source projects and funding
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 have determined that while "open source" still applies to what we're doing, it's caused confusion because the OSI claimed 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. Hence we have to change things.
