I was arguing against this statement: "Open source does not mean, and has never meant, ongoing development nor development with the community." It is simply false that it has never meant that.

While you can have a cathedral-like development and publish it under an open-source license, that's not what RMS was talking about in his essay.

I'm also not arguing about what is good or bad, but about what was meant by the term "open source" when it was introduced, and how it is still understood by many people since then.

SQLite being a prime example of cathedral-style development that few would argue isn’t open source.