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.

I’ve been experimenting with building very small personal tools to help myself stay focused. Recently I wrote a minimal terminal‑based Pomodoro timer because I was struggling to start my side projects and wanted something simple that just works.

While building it, I realized I also need to learn how to distribute small projects properly. Right now I’m trying a simple approach: closed‑source, pay‑what‑you‑want, no DRM, and users just get the right to use the tool.

Since I’m still learning how licensing, expectations and “fairness” work for tiny solo projects, I’m curious how other developers see this model. Is this a reasonable way to distribute small tools? What would you expect as a user or developer?

For context, here’s the project I’m experimenting with.

GitHub: https://github.com/Mietkiewski/MPomidoro