But opensource has always been about community. This way it becomes "source-open", even if you could make changes to it and run those changes yourself, the latter doesn't sound "opensourcy" to me.
replyOpen source is about rights/freedom, the community aspect is downstream from that. You have “source available” projects with active communities and external contributors (see elastic license v2.0 projects), and open source projects that only rely on core developers. With open source freedoms comes a culture of community oriented development but what makes a project open is the license, nothing else. The right to fork, read, run, edit is what matters.
replyUnfortunately AI tools are breaking the open community dynamics, it has become more and more expensive to run open community oriented projects due to the noise, it’s really a shame. It’s a lot to expect volunteer project members to triage the increasing amount of AI garbage
The open source definition does not mention community at all - it is a set of licensing requirements that certain rights to modify code must be maintained, not that upstream will accept your change or (for that matter) that you need to package it up and hand it to them.
replyAnd submitting a PR is almost wholly dissimilar from a conversation between friends over dinner or drinks. If you want to have a community around an open source project, it always has taken more than just accepting patches.