> And that doesn't make the software any less FOSS.
Yes it does. It makes for an useless unreachable repository without even a README that nobody knows about. That's not open source/free software. Developing free software successfully means managing all the things around distributing, documentation and community management and it is that what makes people sour as the benefit of it goes to big corps and startup pockets.
Putting your code into www.mywebsitenobodyknows.com isn't open source/free software
No, I'm not sure why some believe anything of those things are required to call software FOSS.
FOSS means the code is licensed under a FOSS-compatible license, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not sure who is trying to change this definition, or why, but that's what it meant from the beginning, and it's also the understanding of the majority of people I'm interacting with.
You might want to do yourself a favor and read through some of the FOSS licenses you come across in the wild, none of them contain anything that you wrote about.
Edit: I made something just for you, this is FOSS with no extra bells and whistles, and the only thing you need: Code + License https://mywebsitenobodyknows.com/
Yes it does. It makes for an useless unreachable repository without even a README that nobody knows about. That's not open source/free software. Developing free software successfully means managing all the things around distributing, documentation and community management and it is that what makes people sour as the benefit of it goes to big corps and startup pockets.
Putting your code into www.mywebsitenobodyknows.com isn't open source/free software