[infamouscow]

The reason open source maintainers get pissy is because idiots selectively ignore entire paragraphs of the license that explicitly states the project isn't maintained and you shouldn't imply it is under any circumstances. The author is being extremely considerate. The problem is fools have no respect for author or chosen license. They rather do the opposite of what the author's license says. The only reason we're having this discussion is because there's enough fools that think they might be on to something.

The implication is the mistake, not the author for not being explicit enough.

[stanleykm]

The only one being foolish here is you with needless pedantry. Yes the legal contract says that the authors dont owe anyone anything but there is also a social contract at play here that you are apparently not understanding.

[codingstream]

I don't recall there ever being a social contract.

Further, what makes you assume everyone is on the same page about what that social contract is? Have you even considered the possibility that there might be differences of opinion on a social contract which are incompatible? It's why the best course of action is to follow the license rather than delusional fantasies.

The idea there's a social contract is sophistry. Plain and simple.