Yes except all the existing reproducible build and independent signing channels are free software. They only do this software supply chain integrity work for free for those that provide their software for free. Also, the downstream distributions and compilations of software based on these channels, are using free software licenses, and someone -could- charge for say installing them on a new computer.
These communities should not be expected to change their entire license model to remove freedom 1, just because one proprietary software vendor has chosen to remove freedom 1.
So, fdroid, guix, arch, f-droid etc offering signed reproducible builds services for proprietary software vendors being off the table, it then becomes on FUTO to provide users an equally secure path to get their software with as good or better UX.
Right now the only way to assure you get a binary of FUTO without any malware in it is to compile it yourself. Expecting most users to do that is not a serious solution.
We could force their hand though under the terms of the license though.
Lets say I were to release a package of all the dependencies needed to compile FUTO, and on first launch it downloads the code on the fly, patches out any forced-payment or analytics, compiles it, then launches it. Their license would allow it, and it could now be distributed via free software channels technically. But users would just have a very slow first launch.
At that point FUTO loses, forcing us into hacky compliance and getting no money, vs releasing it AGPL in the first place and extending the goodwill that will make some want to donate.
