1. Template-Based Document Creation: Streamline your workflow with the ability to create and share documents using pre-saved templates.
2. Enhanced Signature Customization: Now includes options to input signatures in various text formats and fonts, adding a personalized touch to your documents.
3. Improved Placeholder Management UI: A more intuitive and user-friendly interface for managing signature placeholders, including enhanced resizing capabilities.
4. Efficient Document Organization Tools: New functionalities to delete and move documents within the OpenSign™ drive for better file management.
5. Seamless Email Integration: Easily send signed documents via email directly from the platform, enhancing the document signing and sharing process.
6. Cross-Device Placeholder Compatibility: Ensures consistent placeholder experiences across both mobile and desktop platforms.
7. Customizable User Support Options: Includes a ‘don’t show again’ option for help guides and direct links for easy communication with the OpenSign team.
8. Key Bug Fixes and Performance Enhancements: Addressing various user-reported issues for a smoother, more reliable OpenSign™ experience.
These updates aim to make OpenSign™ a stronger contender in the open source digital signing space, rivalling traditional solutions like DocuSign with a community-driven, user-centric approach.
I’m a co-founder of OpenSign, an open-source alternative to DocuSign. Recently, something concerning happened in our project that I believe the community should know about.
Someone has forked OpenSign and is attempting to strip all paid plan restrictions, replacing our project logos with their own. They even submitted a PR for these changes. While this technically complies with the AGPLv3 license that OpenSign is built on, it raises ethical questions about how open-source projects should operate.
OpenSign was designed to provide accessible, open-source e-signature tools while sustaining development through optional paid plans. This move doesn’t just undercut those plans—it undermines the sustainability of the project itself.
We’re committed to the open-source ethos, but forks like this create a dangerous precedent, especially when they explicitly try to hijack the original project's identity and monetization strategy.
I’d love to hear your thoughts—should open-source projects have more safeguards? Is this just "fair game" in the open-source world? How do we as a community draw ethical boundaries while respecting open-source licenses?
Let’s discuss!