The extent of the FUTO “grant program”, at least in the case of musl libc, involved ignoring musl’s established process for institutional sponsors, quietly sending a modest one-time donation to one maintainer, and then plastering the logo of a well-respected open source project on a list of “grant recipients” on their home page. Rich eventually posted on Mastodon to clarify that the use of the musl name and logo here was unauthorized.
On the other, I like the idea of licenses that allow unrestricted private use and modification but forbid commercial exploitation. Those two situations are not equivalent. I realize this is an unpopular opinion in many FOSS circles, but we are already being exploited to death by the rich and powerful and they must not be entitled to the value of our collective free and voluntary labor. If we ever realize a society in which wealth and power is effectively capped for such entities, then I would change my tune. Until then, fuck them. Our collective software is for the collective, not for wealth hoarders and despots.
I find it wild in this day and age how questions like (“why do WE hate” such and such) are being asked in the first place, then answered through one person’s opinion piece mindlessly linked from all angles. Please, for gawd sake, stop listening to random fedditors/redditors about what opinions you should adopt!
IMHO (<- there’s a novel approach), the criticisms of FUTO are just as biased and political as FUTO themselves, and everyone should be sceptical of bias from all sides. Apparently, focusing on ‘privacy, decentralization, and right to repair’ - is being too political, and they’re not allowed to have a philosophical take on what they imagine successful open source to be. (Incidentally, I’m not necessarily on FUTOs side, just pissed off at the nature of social media to obviate the need of critical thinking and make everything black or white.)
I mean sure but… did you read the piece linked? It backs up it’s claims. Not gonna sit here and act like I verified every single thing linked in the piece but I checked a good handful and it seems pretty straightforward. FUTO is pretty sketchy at the very least, and there’s good reason to consider them a fascist org
I’m not sure what “piece linked” you’re talking about, since none of the parent comments of this comment actually have a link in them.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of FUTO, but I did read their statement about open source and it sounds pretty good to me. I actually think they’re capitulating a little bit too much by deciding not to call it open source anymore. As far as I’m concerned, if the source is available and anyone can contribute, that’s open source. I don’t particularly care whether or not it’s free for Google to incorporate it into their increasingly-enshitified products or not.
Creative Commons (an org to which FUTO says they have donated) doesn’t like their licences being used for software, presumably for finicky technical legal reasons. But if you imagine the broad spirit of their licences applying to software, all the main CC licences would be open source in my opinion. All combinations of Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike, and No Derivatives, as well as CC0 respect the important elements of open source.
Yes I read it when it first came out, and again after a recent update. It’s very opinionated and I remain unconvinced the criticisms amounts to very much. At the least, certainly not to the point where words like nazi and fascist should be thrown around!
For example, I dislike Yarin’s and Lunduke’s politics but I did at least watched Yarin’s interview. (Did you? It was boring, and entirely tech-oriented, nothing controversial at all.) But… trial by association I guess. And anyway, it’s not the article itself I have a problem with - it’s the borrowing of second-hand opinions as if they should be your own. Sometimes, it’s prudent to reserve judgement (until ‘verifying every single thing’), or criticise specific ideas, without leaping to ad hominem per consortium.
My read is that FUTO as a software movement is totally fine, it does what it claims on the tin. The people behind FUTO are a different story, and the main person bankrolling it seems to have friends with odd views (I think they’re blown out of proportion, but they’re still concerning).
You’ll never find a perfect movement. Here’s what FUTO seems to prioritize:
local first alternatives to big tech
source availability, but in a way big tech can’t use but home users can
profitability for devs without coercion or feature gates
That sounds pretty good to me! I’d prefer it to be FOSS, but allowing me to distribute modifications for non-commercial use is probably good enough for most things.
I probably disagree with their founder politically, and I’d run FUTO differently, but I think their software is good and I could maintain it myself if needed, and at the end of the day, that’s what matters to me.
FUTO doesn’t seem interested in getting involved in politics, they’re merely musing philosophically, and their products aren’t profitable, so it doesn’t really matter to me what their political positions are.
No, that’s not fascist. Facial recognition software can be used for a variety of reasons, like unlocking a phone or laptop, gaining access to secure areas, or home automation stuff.
It’s only fascist if used by a government to oppress minorities. The software itself cannot be fascist, but it can be used by fascists.
Yeah, I read this article twice now, and the only identifiable wrongdoing on FUTO’s part is donating to FOSS projects without using their “institutional practice”… Which is a bizarre complaint.
The article is rife with “something ain’t right at FUTO”, but fails to wrap words around that statement.
Except the person who wrote that, regardless of the actual issues with FUTO, cannot be trusted and is an unreliable source.
I really would encourage people to not treat that guy as a real source, but use it as a starting point for evaluating his sources, such as they are, on their own merits.
The founder and frontman of graphene, the person who “stepped away” but did no such thing, the man who insisted for years he wasn’t the only face of graphene but very very clearly was based on his social media posts, has had a long history of abusing both individuals and organizations within the broader privacy enthusiast community. You, like the article, need to stop looking at “he said and she said so they both seem bad” and look at what actually happened and judge for yourself. Graphene has post after post after post of circular logic pointing back at mythical attackers with no actual proof to show for it. People who want daniel @ graphene to get the help he needs have post after post after post of recorded abuse and several videos exist documenting that abuse. So it’s his word and circular logic vs a long record of incident after incident after incident of abuse.
Tldr graphene is run by someone who appears to be brilliant but also appears to suffer from undiagnosed mental health issues and nobody has been able to convince him to get the help he needs. In the meantime, he has spent large portions of the last 5 years ranting and abusing people on the internet. I have the advantage of having watched it play out in real time, but records and archives exist.
I think there could be more to it. Louis Rossmann had personal issues with the lead dev there a year or two ago due to how they interact in their forum, and I think he had some great reasons to be concerned. Since then the lead dev has stepped away as project lead, but I doubt the bad blood is completely gone.
I think it’s a bit suspicious that they don’t mention what feature(s) FUTO wanted. Given their interaction with other projects, I’m guessing they wanted a “supporter” badge for people who have bought the software (no change in functionality other than the badge). I’m guessing also that due to their interaction with Rossmann, they’re uninterested in clarifying, esp. if it would put FUTO in a better light if they did.
Then again, maybe FUTO is a bunch of scumbags. It just seems the slant against them is so much stronger than the actual negative impact from a handful of repos having source-available licenses instead of FOSS licenses.
The short version is they take grapheneos’ abuse of others at face value and appear to take grapheneos’ side. Graphene is by all outward appearances a good product, but their founder has a great deal of untreated mental issues related to paranoia and has a long history of abusing other groups and encouraging his most loyal followers to do the same. As far as I’m aware I am not exaggerating this in any way and I hope the founder eventually admits he needs help.
So if one of your items is someone with paranoid delusions, and you don’t question that in any way and make it clear by your words you’ve taken that person’s side, I cannot take any other argument seriously without doing my own checking (which I have not done yet, hence my original phrasing).
They’ve been featuring projects on their page that they display their donations on, projects that did not know or outright refused, without their consent or understanding.
The company that employed the core Immich devs about a year ago to give them a full-time salary to keep working on Immich. Founded and funded by a millionaire whose stated goal is to try and make a viable business model out of software that doesn’t abuse its users
So wait, we hate FUTO but love Immich?
I don’t hate FUTO, but I distrust them.
On one hand, their operation is creepy and suspicious.
On the other, I like the idea of licenses that allow unrestricted private use and modification but forbid commercial exploitation. Those two situations are not equivalent. I realize this is an unpopular opinion in many FOSS circles, but we are already being exploited to death by the rich and powerful and they must not be entitled to the value of our collective free and voluntary labor. If we ever realize a society in which wealth and power is effectively capped for such entities, then I would change my tune. Until then, fuck them. Our collective software is for the collective, not for wealth hoarders and despots.
Immich is actually open source.
I find it wild in this day and age how questions like (“why do WE hate” such and such) are being asked in the first place, then answered through one person’s opinion piece mindlessly linked from all angles. Please, for gawd sake, stop listening to random fedditors/redditors about what opinions you should adopt!
IMHO (<- there’s a novel approach), the criticisms of FUTO are just as biased and political as FUTO themselves, and everyone should be sceptical of bias from all sides. Apparently, focusing on ‘privacy, decentralization, and right to repair’ - is being too political, and they’re not allowed to have a philosophical take on what they imagine successful open source to be. (Incidentally, I’m not necessarily on FUTOs side, just pissed off at the nature of social media to obviate the need of critical thinking and make everything black or white.)
I mean sure but… did you read the piece linked? It backs up it’s claims. Not gonna sit here and act like I verified every single thing linked in the piece but I checked a good handful and it seems pretty straightforward. FUTO is pretty sketchy at the very least, and there’s good reason to consider them a fascist org
I’m not sure what “piece linked” you’re talking about, since none of the parent comments of this comment actually have a link in them.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of FUTO, but I did read their statement about open source and it sounds pretty good to me. I actually think they’re capitulating a little bit too much by deciding not to call it open source anymore. As far as I’m concerned, if the source is available and anyone can contribute, that’s open source. I don’t particularly care whether or not it’s free for Google to incorporate it into their increasingly-enshitified products or not.
Creative Commons (an org to which FUTO says they have donated) doesn’t like their licences being used for software, presumably for finicky technical legal reasons. But if you imagine the broad spirit of their licences applying to software, all the main CC licences would be open source in my opinion. All combinations of Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike, and No Derivatives, as well as CC0 respect the important elements of open source.
Yes I read it when it first came out, and again after a recent update. It’s very opinionated and I remain unconvinced the criticisms amounts to very much. At the least, certainly not to the point where words like nazi and fascist should be thrown around!
For example, I dislike Yarin’s and Lunduke’s politics but I did at least watched Yarin’s interview. (Did you? It was boring, and entirely tech-oriented, nothing controversial at all.) But… trial by association I guess. And anyway, it’s not the article itself I have a problem with - it’s the borrowing of second-hand opinions as if they should be your own. Sometimes, it’s prudent to reserve judgement (until ‘verifying every single thing’), or criticise specific ideas, without leaping to ad hominem per consortium.
As far as I can tell the worst thing they did was call their source available license open source, which isn’t even that bad.
My read is that FUTO as a software movement is totally fine, it does what it claims on the tin. The people behind FUTO are a different story, and the main person bankrolling it seems to have friends with odd views (I think they’re blown out of proportion, but they’re still concerning).
You’ll never find a perfect movement. Here’s what FUTO seems to prioritize:
That sounds pretty good to me! I’d prefer it to be FOSS, but allowing me to distribute modifications for non-commercial use is probably good enough for most things.
I probably disagree with their founder politically, and I’d run FUTO differently, but I think their software is good and I could maintain it myself if needed, and at the end of the day, that’s what matters to me.
FUTO doesn’t seem interested in getting involved in politics, they’re merely musing philosophically, and their products aren’t profitable, so it doesn’t really matter to me what their political positions are.
deleted by creator
Software can’t be fascist, it’s just software. The makers or users can be fascist though. If that statement was true, Lemmy would be tankie.
deleted by creator
No, that’s not fascist. Facial recognition software can be used for a variety of reasons, like unlocking a phone or laptop, gaining access to secure areas, or home automation stuff.
It’s only fascist if used by a government to oppress minorities. The software itself cannot be fascist, but it can be used by fascists.
deleted by creator
Hahah you mean like Lemmy itself?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
oh so you’re STUPID stupid
Fantastic rebuttal kindergartener, you convinced everyone.
May I ask why do we hate FUTO?
they’re wearing the clothes of “open source” but they run like a proverbial nazi bar: https://drewdevault.com/2025/10/22/2025-10-22-Whats-up-with-FUTO.html
Yeah, I read this article twice now, and the only identifiable wrongdoing on FUTO’s part is donating to FOSS projects without using their “institutional practice”… Which is a bizarre complaint.
The article is rife with “something ain’t right at FUTO”, but fails to wrap words around that statement.
Except the person who wrote that, regardless of the actual issues with FUTO, cannot be trusted and is an unreliable source.
I really would encourage people to not treat that guy as a real source, but use it as a starting point for evaluating his sources, such as they are, on their own merits.
The above post isn’t the first I’ve heard bad about FUTO. GrapheneOS has also spoken out against them
The founder and frontman of graphene, the person who “stepped away” but did no such thing, the man who insisted for years he wasn’t the only face of graphene but very very clearly was based on his social media posts, has had a long history of abusing both individuals and organizations within the broader privacy enthusiast community. You, like the article, need to stop looking at “he said and she said so they both seem bad” and look at what actually happened and judge for yourself. Graphene has post after post after post of circular logic pointing back at mythical attackers with no actual proof to show for it. People who want daniel @ graphene to get the help he needs have post after post after post of recorded abuse and several videos exist documenting that abuse. So it’s his word and circular logic vs a long record of incident after incident after incident of abuse.
Tldr graphene is run by someone who appears to be brilliant but also appears to suffer from undiagnosed mental health issues and nobody has been able to convince him to get the help he needs. In the meantime, he has spent large portions of the last 5 years ranting and abusing people on the internet. I have the advantage of having watched it play out in real time, but records and archives exist.
I think there could be more to it. Louis Rossmann had personal issues with the lead dev there a year or two ago due to how they interact in their forum, and I think he had some great reasons to be concerned. Since then the lead dev has stepped away as project lead, but I doubt the bad blood is completely gone.
I think it’s a bit suspicious that they don’t mention what feature(s) FUTO wanted. Given their interaction with other projects, I’m guessing they wanted a “supporter” badge for people who have bought the software (no change in functionality other than the badge). I’m guessing also that due to their interaction with Rossmann, they’re uninterested in clarifying, esp. if it would put FUTO in a better light if they did.
Then again, maybe FUTO is a bunch of scumbags. It just seems the slant against them is so much stronger than the actual negative impact from a handful of repos having source-available licenses instead of FOSS licenses.
There is 5+ more years to it than that
Thank you for linking this.
Why do you say they’re unreliable and can’t be trusted?
The short version is they take grapheneos’ abuse of others at face value and appear to take grapheneos’ side. Graphene is by all outward appearances a good product, but their founder has a great deal of untreated mental issues related to paranoia and has a long history of abusing other groups and encouraging his most loyal followers to do the same. As far as I’m aware I am not exaggerating this in any way and I hope the founder eventually admits he needs help.
So if one of your items is someone with paranoid delusions, and you don’t question that in any way and make it clear by your words you’ve taken that person’s side, I cannot take any other argument seriously without doing my own checking (which I have not done yet, hence my original phrasing).
They’ve been featuring projects on their page that they display their donations on, projects that did not know or outright refused, without their consent or understanding.
https://lemmy.ml/post/37910334
https://lemmy.zip/post/51673470
May I ask what the fuck FUTO is?
The company that employed the core Immich devs about a year ago to give them a full-time salary to keep working on Immich. Founded and funded by a millionaire whose stated goal is to try and make a viable business model out of software that doesn’t abuse its users
deleted by creator
The duality of man.