EDIT: Okay fine, I see it your way. Open source may often imply open community. I'll stop trying to argue that it doesn't. Instead, I posit that open source should not imply open community, even if that's what the originators of the movement intended.

I'm leaving my first draft of this comment below because there's a couple of points I just can't help but be a pedant over.

> Opening the code is a good thing and there’s no obligation for you to do anything more. But it isn’t doing what open source was designed to do; it’s ignoring a key part of it.

Yes, we don't agree on whether it's a "key part." That doesn't mean I misunderstood you, it means I think you're wrong.

> I’m saying that there’s a cultural norm to do so – so yes, open source does imply community.

No, it doesn't. Open Source doesn't imply anything except that the software is released under a license consistent with the OSD, and the cultural norms have no bearing on that.

Just because you expect it doesn't mean it's implied. If I release software today and call it "open source," but don't provide any means to send me outside contributions, can anyone reasonably claim that my software isn't open source? No. Therefore, community is not implied.

> The OSD is not a definition for the Open Source movement.

If the OP were making claims about what the open source movement is or isn't, then this would be pertinent. I don't think they're saying that though, I think they're saying that open source does not imply open community.

> It doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree – it’s not something I said and it’s not relevant to the point I was making.

And I say it doesn't matter what you said, because when I said

> if you don't think the statement is true

I was addressing whether the statement was true of false, not whether it's the main point you were trying to make. If it's true, then it supports my argument, regardless of whether it happened to be the claim you were making. It's like...

> Squares and circles are the same.

> A square has four sides, and circles have no sides. Therefore, circles and squares are exclusive.

> I never said anything about how many sides any shapes have.

You see how it doesn't matter whether it's the exact claim you made, it only matters whether it's true? The point of debate is for both parties to find out what's true.

> Community participation has always been a cultural norm of the Open Source movement.

I really don't see how that's so different and contradictory to

> the terms laid out in the OSD were motivated by hopes of cultivating a community.

> no obligation for you to do anything more.

I think if you agree with this sentence you agree with OP, so I don't know why you need to clarify what's typical in the movement. OP's point still stands.