To be frank, you appear to be set on pre-punishing a solo developer for sharing a family-and-friends project based on a rather cursory examination. Doesn’t that run somewhat contrary to the spirit of FOSS?

“The spirit of FOSS” entails the users having the four freedoms (to use, modify, share verbatim copies, and share modified copies) of the source code. You’ve suggested that this project is primarily binary-only with only intermittent source code dumps, meaning that until these binaries have corresponding source code they are neither FOSS in letter nor in spirit, and thus inappropriate for this community as well as for !aials@lemmy.ml, which is for AI-assisted FOSS. Given that you’ve suggested you will only provide source code for “major revisions” this suggests that “minor versions” never will be FOSS. Effectively you’re promoting a proprietary product here that may or may not have intermittent source code snapshots.

Furthermore, the fact that you seem to consider it a great effort to “sanitize” the source code for public release suggests that what is being shared with the public is not in fact the corresponding source code to the binaries you upload.

As you pointed out the MIT license does allow you to make proprietary derivatives, so nothing you’ve done is “wrong” or illegal. That doesn’t make it not proprietary.

Edit: I’m a different person than the admin who removed your post. I’m not suggesting your project is slop or that the effort you’ve put into it is inconsequential. I’m just saying that binaries without source code are not FOSS even if you publish occasional snapshots of selected releases. I’d probably be more favorable to this approach if there were FOSS builds from the source code snapshots, or maybe if only the FOSS releases were on github and the proprietary ones somewhere else - but that’s probably asking a bit too much.