So it seems like it was a mistake to let go of control of the foundation as one of the original founders? But if you have to (I see there were health reasons), doesn't a foundation have a charter, where one could put the intention that e.g. 50% of funds go directly to software development, or something?
Just as an informational point, it's generally highly discouraged for foundations or non-profits to have board members (the ones that have the legal control) take a salary as it creates a conflict of interest that's hard to work out of. So if you help found a non-profit, raise money, and then want to do it full time, a lot of times you'll invariably lose control — and there's good governance reasons for that, but it definitely matters who the board ends up being.
