I’m not a fan of that argument. Basically, that article goes: I don’t like their definition of open source (fair) and it’s weird that the founder platforms a far right person (also fair), so you shouldn’t trust FUTO (weird conclusion).

I don’t like how we find some reason to discredit an org who does otherwise good things. Look at the reaction to Framework donating to projects run by unsavory prior people. None of the discussion is about the technical merits of the projects, but the association with people who have certain political ideas.

You’re not going to find the perfect mix of popular, ethical, and the “right” political ideology. As long as a project can be audited and forked, that’s good enough for me. Forking seems possible with FUTO projects, with the weird caveat that payment code can’t be removed. It’s not perfect, but at least their products are privacy respecting and largely drop in replacements for non-privacy respecting first party apps.

Could FUTO be better? Yeah, absolutely. Is the founder’s relationship with a far right activist concerning? Again, yes. Do either of those stop me from enjoying their software? No, I believe in enough of their mission that I think supporting them sends the right message: software source should be available and devs should be paid. The rest of the nonsense doesn’t really impact that.

I feel the same about Framework. Could they do a better job selecting projects to donate to? Yes. Does that change the fact that their hardware is easily repairable in a market dominated by unrepairable slop? No.

At the end of the day, I have no problem supporting projects that align 90% with my priorities, even if the last 10% is lightyears away.