Comment by nateabele

> If this is the case, why open source or publish it in the first place? If you want people to read the code, but not interact with you, why not write that into the license?

Because there's a difference between 'can' and 'must'. It's great when people use my OSS work, give feedback, and even file bugs. What's not great is when people adopt the position that they're entitled to a fix right now (or ever), or that they're entitled to new features or design consideration for their minority use case. In summary, strawmanning someone else's argument is bad, and you should feel bad.

> [W]hy bother with this angsty rant?

Managing large OSS projects is about doing things at scale, like answering a question exhaustively once, in one place, so you can refer back to it instead of having to explain variations of it repeatedly, ad infinitum. As far as 'angsty', maybe start with a little humility: check your own biases before reading an attitude into someone else's message.

> This is completely wrong.

Nope, you are. Both in the technical/legal sense and the historical sense. Recommended reading: The Cathedral and the Bazaar.