That depends entirely on the intention with which an author decides to publish their code as open source. That intention could be to forge an active connection

That depends entirely on the intention with which an author decides to publish their code as open source. That intention could be to forge an active connection with a community of users, or it could simply be to just get it out there to anyone's benefit, rather then have it gathering dust in some private git repository, with no further engagements or obligations on the author's part. The open source license included with the code doesn't say anything about the author's intentions at all. > That's the whole point of open source. The whole point of adding an open source license to your code is to share code with others with virtually no strings attached. That is, neither from the user's side, but also from the author's side. Everything else is just custom and market dynamics. > Linus Torvalds understood that all too well, and still does. He's not a philanthropist. He's pretty rude and selfish (he admits that about himself), and that's exactly why the open source approach worked so well for him. When Linus decided to push the GPL on his code, he couldn't possibly predict or foreshadow that his little hobby project would end up being this successful. His original intention was simply to gather as much feedback as he could to improve his project. In fact, it would take until version 0.12 before he'd add the "GNU copyleft" license. And that's only after some people pointed out to him "Have you considered adding a copyleft license?" [1] [1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/ol... The open source approach worked well for him because it facilitated the spread of Linux towards key people in large public institutions and commercial organizations for whom Linux simply, accidentally happened to be a good, cost effective fit. Linux was released in 1991 and barely a few years later, with Dell, Red Hat, IBM offering commercial support and Red Hat and VA Linux having IPO's around 1999. Linux wasn't just successful because "open source". It was successful because it turned out to be the right product at the right time at the right place. And that's what really drives development.