[jlokb2341]

> The issue is that a mitmproxy dependency has a CVE,

As the maintainer explained, the CVE doesn't even effect mitmproxy. All they would be doing is helping an infosec person tick off a box.

> immediately coming back with "email me for a support contract" seems a bit over the top to me.

Why should the maintainer work for free while the requester profits off free labor?

> I don't think that's an unreasonable question

What's unreasonable is FrugalGuy's entitlement. You have to be a special type of hypocrite to accuse an open source maintainer of extortion after demanding they work for free. You can't demand things of volunteers working part time on foss projects.

[brightlancer]

> You have to be a special type of hypocrite to accuse an open source maintainer of extortion after demanding they work for free. You can't demand things of volunteers working part time on foss projects.

In the original github comment, the corporate asked a question.

Questions are not demands. He didn't say "Do this"; he _ASKED_ "When will you do this?"

[rf15]

That's not how it went though. They deliberately put their paying customer as a leverage topic on the table right away.