I’m trying to understand which licensing model makes the most sense for small personal tools — not as products, but as experiments to learn how to distribute software before working on a larger project.
To explore this, I released a tiny utility as source‑available rather than fully open‑source. The code is visible, but the license is restrictive. GitHub here works only as a landing page, not as a full FOSS repo.
Here’s the project I’m using as a test case (not promoting it — just showing the model I’m experimenting with): https://github.com/Mietkiewski/MPomidoro
My goal isn’t to push the tool itself — it’s just a way to understand how people interpret these categories:
Is source‑available meaningfully different from closed‑source?
Do you expect small tools to default to open‑source?
Does hosting something on GitHub imply a FOSS expectation?
For someone planning a larger ecosystem later, which model is the most reasonable starting point?
I’m genuinely trying to understand how open‑source communities see these distinctions before I commit to a long‑term direction.
What do you expect to learn from those so called tests? (no offence)
The big questions in closed vs open is that there are different scenarios :
for closed source -> less competitor -> more users -> more money -> more investment in the project -> better product.
for open source -> more users want to use it and contribute to it -> better software -> more users -> more potential for making money.
The problem is that for the outcomes you want to track (more money or better software). there are so many variable involved that influence those outcomes so it’s hard to deduce that the license is improving the outcomes or making them worst.
I’m not trying to prove which license is better — too many variables, like you said. I’m just testing how different models change user behavior: who clicks, who downloads, who ignores. It’s more about distribution patterns than software quality.