I feel like their ought to be another term for what the author is talking about, which is software developed by the community and maintained openly. Calling thi

I feel like their ought to be another term for what the author is talking about, which is software developed by the community and maintained openly. Calling this "open source" seems inappropriate, as this only describes the license of the software, which seems really orthogonal. A lot of open-source software is not developed openly or accepting contributions, it's just published as a tarball somewhere. There is no volunteer work, there is no fostering of a community. Some projects explicitly refuse outside contributions, like SQLite, but are still open-source (= license). In contrast, some software is developed in a communal fashion but is open-core, BSL, or at least partly proprietary. In this article, every time the author says something about "open source projects", they mean community-developed projects. Maybe the word "project" does enough work here, and everyone understands the difference between "open source software" (= the code, under open license) and "open source project" (= community-developed openly-maintained software)?