While I do appreciate the efforts of the foundation, a true privacy by design foundation should be promoting the PbD principles in general instead of simply building a decentralized identity app.
It was the mere hinting by the University of Minnesota that it might consider proprietary licencing of the gopher protocol that killed it dead. Numerous other protocols have been pitched but as proprietary solutions, never to see widespread acceptance. Sun's NEWS display system, and numerous HTML also-rans particularly come to mind.
Even the FSF, which strongly encourages GPL and APL licencing to spread the concept and use of Free Software acknowledges and encourages the use of "permissive" licencing -- MIT, BSD, and LGPL -- to encourage adoption of open protocols and infrastructure (glibc and other libraries).
PS: I learned about it via a talk from the Royal Institution:
If anyone from Privacy by Design is reading, an explainer article with a headline clearly stating the tool and intent would be very useful collateral to share.
HN, and numerous other sites, insist on sticking strictly to original titles in many cases, to avoid amplification or distortion by submitters. As original authors, getting your own headlines appropriately focused is a huge benefit.
The site itself is a bit of a hot mess (as are many these days) and could use some focus on orienting and familiarising readers with the project, goals, action items, and tools & resources.