The inventor merely put a new name onto the existing free software terminology. By her own account she did not invent a new category of software but merely renamed it. As a result taking her words out of context is disingenuous because she and everyone else would assume all existing free software definitions still apply unless otherwise noted. Which is defined as:
> But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
The freedom to charge for modified versions was always there.
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.
> But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
The freedom to charge for modified versions was always there.