[lowkey]

Claiming that a single institution that is has open source in it’s name but benefits from having it’s primary source of revenue come from closed-source big tech software companies is very suspect.

These source-available licenses that limit one’s ability to commercialize are specifically designed to prevent big tech oligopolies from exploiting open source without payning, something they are notorious for doing.

Regardless, her original definition did not weigh in either way on the ability to commercialize, specifically to avoid a political battle.

As such the FUTO license is a valid open source license under the original definition, but not on the OZzi’s definition.