You've made a great project, and I can see your concern about open source. However, just to give you the opposing point of view, open source doesn't always mean community-driven development. For example, Rich Hickey, creator of Clojure, has an article about that: https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95.... From the article:
> The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to work are people who run projects, and the scope of their entitlement extends only to their own projects.
> Just because someone open sources something does not imply they owe the world a change in their status, focus and effort, e.g. from inventor to community manager.
> Open source is a licensing and delivery mechanism, period. It means you get the source for software and the right to use and modify it. All social impositions associated with it, including the idea of 'community-driven-development' are part of a recently-invented mythology with little basis in how things actually work, a mythology that embodies, cult-like, both a lack of support for diversity in the ways things can work and a pervasive sense of communal entitlement.
I can totally understand not choosing to open source it, it's your project and yours alone. But that also means that you're free to put it on the internet under a permissive license, and refuse any contribution. Another example of the "Open source, not open contribution" stance is SQLite: https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html. There are lots of entitled people asking for free development time from maintainers. You don't owe them anything. This software is your intellectual property. It is yours and yours alone, no one should expect anything from you. With all that said, I understand not open sourcing it to not even take the risk, it's very easy to say "just ignore those people", but it can be very hard to do.
> The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to work are people who run projects, and the scope of their entitlement extends only to their own projects.
> Just because someone open sources something does not imply they owe the world a change in their status, focus and effort, e.g. from inventor to community manager.
> Open source is a licensing and delivery mechanism, period. It means you get the source for software and the right to use and modify it. All social impositions associated with it, including the idea of 'community-driven-development' are part of a recently-invented mythology with little basis in how things actually work, a mythology that embodies, cult-like, both a lack of support for diversity in the ways things can work and a pervasive sense of communal entitlement.
I can totally understand not choosing to open source it, it's your project and yours alone. But that also means that you're free to put it on the internet under a permissive license, and refuse any contribution. Another example of the "Open source, not open contribution" stance is SQLite: https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html. There are lots of entitled people asking for free development time from maintainers. You don't owe them anything. This software is your intellectual property. It is yours and yours alone, no one should expect anything from you. With all that said, I understand not open sourcing it to not even take the risk, it's very easy to say "just ignore those people", but it can be very hard to do.
With all that said, congratulations again!