Assuming that a "proper" Open Source project is one with an active community and commitments to long term development and growth etc., is detrimental to simply getting code out there that people can use. There's often an assumption that even if you're releasing code under a Free/Open license you must want to almost run it like a startup, paying close attention to the needs of your "customers" etc.

But there's a whole other side, where you simply take code you're probably never going to do anything more with ever again, but rather than just letting it die, you set it free for other people to do something with it if they like.

One of the core Freedoms is the freedom to adapt existing code in whatever way you like. If something I've written can have some of its innards repurposed into something someone else needs, and save them a day or two of development in the meantime, then that's every bit as valid as if I create a black-box library that tens of thousands of people use (and expect new features from on an ongoing basis).

IME there is woefully insufficient attention paid to the first of these approaches.