Closing Canario Terminal source code

Most people were fine with the author's right to do that. What they rejected was the framing that open source itself forced this outcome. The recurring point was simple: an open source license only governs access and reuse of code. It does not require accepting patches, running issue trackers, answering strangers, or "building in public." Several people pointed out that GitHub now supports disabling issues and pull requests, and that maintainers have long had lower-engagement options like shipping tarballs or read-only mirrors. That pushed the conversation toward a sharper distinction between "open code" and "open contribution." The practical consensus was that AI spam is real and maintainers are burned out, but the cleaner response is to narrow the contact surface, not necessarily to stop releasing source at all. A second thread made the trust angle explicit. Terminal emulators sit in a sensitive spot. They handle passwords, shell input, and all terminal output. For software in that position, some readers treat closed source as an immediate nonstarter, not because source guarantees safety, but because it removes an important way to inspect, fork, and verify behavior. Others broadened that into a larger 2026 complaint: solo open source maintainers are absorbing more noise than ever, while users still expect free tools and personal responsiveness. Even then, the discussion landed on structure rather than ideology. The durable lesson was that maintainers need firmer boundaries and clearer publishing models, not that "open source" and maintainer sanity are inherently incompatible.