Levels of Openness

Open source claimed by someone as open source is not open source if:

• First and foremost - since this is the fake that applies to most of the impostors - If it restricts commercial use, such as by the NC Clause in Creative Commons licenses - it is not open source according to the OSHWA definition. OpenROV is guilty here, as their hardware has the NC Clause.

• Note that making money provides a positive feedback loop for people to make livelihood based on open source - and this right should not be abridged if we care about general human welfare. In practice, when someone uses open source there is a good chance that they will contribute to a project out of good will. Thus, people should be encouraged to participate by allowing them to use content for commercial purposes. Livelihood based on open source is a good thing. There are still many who will contribute to NC projects, but only in the capacity of a hobbyist - not one whose livelihood comes from participating. When you contribute to an NC enterprise, that enterprise is privatizing your public contribution.

• There is no documentation. Someone could claim that they are open source as much as they want - but if they can't point you at a public repository where you can freely download documentation or design - their work is not really open source.
• Their design documentation consists of patents. Patents are already open source in that they are on the public record. However, patents do not show actual designs, they show mechanisms and concepts that are patented. Thus, if somene says they release all their patents as open source, if they do not make their actaul CAD files, technical drawings, etc, public- then they are not really open source. Tesla Motors is guilty here.

Something is authentically open source even if it has the requirement that derivatives are likewise required to be shared free of charge.