You can certainly argue that, but that's not what Open Source or Free Software has ever been. It's about your freedoms as a user, you are always free to fork with a different model. I think the expectation of "open contributions" is quite damaging, to the point where peple/organizations are hesitant to release their software as open source at all.

That's not what Open Source means. The development team not being willing to review your pull requests does not limit your freedom to use sqlite in any way.

sqlite is actually public domain. https://sqlite.org/copyright.html. This is also the reason why they are closed contribution.

It's a strange combination in the free software world, but I'm grateful for it.

They aren’t closed for contribution.

From the author: “They have a really high bar”, but are accepted, occasionally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34480732

but they also have this:

> In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, the project does not accept patches. If you would like to suggest a change and you include a patch as a proof-of-concept, that would be great. However, please do not be offended if we rewrite your patch from scratch.

https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

From the same url:

SQLite is open-source, meaning that you can make as many copies of it as you want and do whatever you want with those copies, without limitation. But SQLite is not open-contribution. In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure that the code does not become contaminated with proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept patches from people who have not submitted an affidavit dedicating their contribution into the public domain.

All of the code in SQLite is original, having been written specifically for use by SQLite. No code has been copied from unknown sources on the internet.

This is a case of you deciding that open source means something which it does not, never has, and will not mean.

I consider this an empty exercise, but if it pleases you to use language that way, no one can stop you.

I’ll go a few steps further:

- it’s only kinda open source if it’s not on GitHub,

- it’s definitely not open source if it’s not in Git,

- but it can regain its open sourceness if it has an open Discord and the devs are hanging out there.

Here, all my heuristics exposed. (I’m not claiming they’re true or sensible, just saying what my brain thinks.)

The insanity of requiring an open source project to be hosted on a proprietary for profit Microsoft social platform with git hosting makes my head hurt.