billbutter I've always subscribed to the GNU definition of FOSS.
If FUTO wished to subscribe to that definition, they could use a GPL license. But the current FUTO license forbids others from doing what FUTO is doing.
As I understand it, the FUTO keyboard is a fork of an earlier project, which FUTO is investing in and wants to be paid for. That is fine, but their license forbids others from forking it, investing in it, and shifting any payment stream their way.
What if FUTO as a company shuts down? Eventually most companies do. Or what if they decide to end development of this one program, or sell it? Companies do that, too.
When SimpleMobileTools was sold and changed direction, the code was forked as Fossify. If FUTO were to change radically (as sometimes happens with companies, and non-company organizations), the software can't just be forked by a different organization that wishes to continue the previous model.
Regardless of whether FUTO's license model is a good one, it genuinely isn't the same as GPL or MIT or Apache, which are symmetrical. The FUTO license restricts some benefits to FUTO.