Open source as originally defined by Christine Paterson, the inventor of the term refers to software the includes the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code.
By the original definition of the term by its inventor, the FUTO license absolutely is a valid open source license.
You may be referring to the OSI’s definition of open-source according to the Open Source Definition (OSD). If so you should clarify that this is the case.
The Open Source Initiative took the original definition of open-source and modified it to include terms protecting the ability for a user to commercially exploit the software or make it closed-source without compensating the original authors.
I suspect (but cannot prove) that the OSI defintion was influenced by their very large big tech donors including Microsoft, Google and Apple who all benefit significantly from this small change to the definition.
'Our use of the term “open source” thus far has been not out of carelessness, but out of disdain for OSI approved licenses which nevertheless allow developers to be exploited by large corporate interests. The OSI, an organization with confidential charter members and large corporate sponsors, does not have any legal right to say what is and is not “open source”. It is arrogant of them to lay claim to the definition.'
It is arrogant of FUTO to try to redefine 'open source' to their liking.
The minds behind OSI created the Open Source Definition more than 25 years ago. When some one says that software is 'open source' that is understood to mean that the software is licenced under a license that bestows specific rights to the users of the software.
FUTO is welcome to create licenses that advance their goals and name their licenses as they wish, but their licenses will not be 'open source' unless the terms of the Open Source Definition are met.
Words have meanings. If I sell you an automobile and then give you a bicycle, you would probably be upset that I did not deliver what was expected. I cannot change the definition of 'automobile' because I disagree with some parts of it. The word has a specific meaning that is well understood by people. The same argument applies to 'open source'.
“It is arrogant of FUTO to try to redefine 'open source' to their liking”
What if FUTO isn’t trying to redefine the term but merely reminding everyone of the original definition as it was coined by the inventor of the term which focused exclusively on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code - with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)
>> What if FUTO isn’t trying to redefine the term but merely reminding everyone of the original definition as it was coined by the inventor of the term which focused exclusively on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code - with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)
Christine Peterson who originally coined the term 'open source' to describe software licensing did so as a way to remove confusion surrounding the term 'free software':
'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.'
When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you are insinuating is also true--it was not mentioned because the ideas had already been stated and in practice in free software.
“ When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you are insinuating is also true--it was not mentioned because the ideas had already been stated and in practice in free software.”
Agree with this assertion. The original definition was intended to be non-political and so specifically excluded any assertions related to the commercialization of software licensed as open source. In other words it didn’t make any assertions one way or another.
The OSI later clarified that according to their open source definition (OSD)TM only licenses that did not limit commercialization by licensees would be considered open source. I assert that this decision was most likely influenced by OSI’s big tech closed-source financial doners, though you are free to disagree.
No, that's source available. Please don't redefine these things.