> Not “open source” because I don’t want contributions Minor nit: You can make something FOSS by publishing the code under a FOSS license. You don't have to ac

> Not “open source” because I don’t want contributions Minor nit: You can make something FOSS by publishing the code under a FOSS license. You don't have to accept PRs, you don't have to take bug reports or feature requests, you don't have to foster a community. Open Source can be as simple as "here is a tarball of source code that you can use", full stop. (As an extreme case in multiple senses, sqlite famously is public domain, and also generally doesn't take any contributions - https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html ) Of course, you are fully entitled to go Source-available too, and if you want to facilitate audits without actually giving anyone else the right to use your code then that's the way to go. I just want to point out that there are options between "not FOSS" and "community-centric development".