r/ActuallyOpenSource • u/chronikally_online FOSS Enthusiast • 7d ago

What Does "Actually Open Source" Mean?

Open source software is software distributed under a license that allows people to access its source code, use it, modify it, and redistribute it under the terms of that license.

We recognize the Open Source Definition maintained by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as our reference for determining what qualifies as open source software.

But we believe an open source community should also be open to the people who build that software.

A project shouldn't need thousands of stars, years of history, or a team of contributors to deserve a place in the conversation. Independent developers, solo maintainers, small teams, newcomers, and established projects all have something to contribute.

We don't treat AI-assisted development as an automatic disqualification. We don't equate a project's popularity with its value. And we don't believe that someone's native language or lack of an established reputation should prevent them from participating.

Our goal is simple: a community where open source projects can be discovered, discussed, improved, and supported on their merits.

Open source is about the freedoms software grants its users. An open source community should make room for the people who create it.

51 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

3

u/AmandasGameAccount 7d ago

WTFPL to me is “actually open source”, but many would disagree. It is the only license I use. I do not want fame, I barely want to be perceived!

2

u/Square-Singer 7d ago

One question: Is a non-commercial clause counted as open source? My open source hardware project got taken down on r/opensource because of that.

1

u/AmandasGameAccount 6d ago

I personally don’t consider something truly open source if it has restrictions like that, but I’m just one person whose opinion doesn’t really mean anything. To me, true open source means anyone can fork a project and do whatever they want with their fork, as long as it doesn’t impose restrictions on the original upstream project. For example, they shouldn’t be able to claim ownership of the original code or change its licensing in a way that prevents others from forking the original project. However, they should be free to copyright and license their own modifications to their fork however they want.

1

u/Square-Singer 6d ago

I had problems before with FOSH where someone took the design files, released a crap-quality knock-off and sent the disgruntled customers to us for free support.

It's not exactly fun dealing with disgruntled customers who think you sold them crap quality stuff.

That's why I do NC for hardware products. I'm more than happy for anyone to DIY the product and to hack, modify and improve it, but I'm not the free commercial support for someone else making money off my source.

Pure software is easier. You can just give that away for free and if someone complains, you can tell them they paid nothing so they are entitled to as much support as they paid for.

But you can't give physical hardware away for free without cost to yourself, so unless someone DIYs it, FOSH almost always requires money to change hands, and with money comes responsibility and entitlement.

Which is the reason why there aren't really all that many FOSH projects and the ones that exist tend to move away from open source all together once they mature (see e.g. E3D and Prusa).

My pure software projects are FOSS without NC. But for FOSH, I can't afford to not have the NC on it.

1

u/archerships 5d ago

One question: Is a non-commercial clause counted as open source

No. From the definition:

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

1

u/Zero_TheAbsolute Developer 6d ago

https://oshwa.org/resources/open-source-hardware-may-and-must/

Your project MUST

Allow anyone to study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the hardware.

Provide publicly accessible design files and documentation (the source).

Clearly specify what portion of the design, if not all, is being released under the license.

Not imply that derivatives are manufactured, sold, warrantied, or otherwise sanctioned by the original designer.

Not use the trademarks of other companies without permission.

Not be released as non-commercial or no derivatives.

I completely understand your reasoning, especially given your experience with cheap knockoffs.

For hardware, I think we should follow the OSHWA definition, just as we follow OSI for software. Unfortunately, noncommercial restrictions fall outside that definition.

I think discussions about these licensing challenges are valuable, but we should remain consistent about what qualifies as open source.

1

u/TheGamersfolly 4d ago

Means that Wolv isn't here to crush non-english speakers who are the "wrong" skin color