[jsnell]

> begins demanding something

Yes, those alleged demands by "leechers" are exactly what I've been asking about. From the lack of specifics, it is starting to be pretty obvious that they do not actually exist.

I'm not saying that the maintainer did anything wrong. They don't have to give anyone the time of day, and everyone should be happier now that expectations have been set appropriately.

But why can't we just accept that it is a choice he has the right to make? Why do we need to fabricate villains by making up stories about demands, entitlement, and billions in profit?

[altairprime]

> Why do we need to fabricate villains

Is the behavior of these corporations towards maintainers something that we should evaluate against moral standards — i.e. by considering “are they villains in this story?” — or are they exempt from such moral judgments so long as they complied lawfully with the licensing terms?

I think the former. If I interpret your question correctly, you think the latter? I’m not open to persuasion on this specific viewpoint, so we’re probably at an impasse here.

[jsnell]

I mean, I've mostly been trying to establish what the specific alleged behavior even is and what the factual basis is for the allegation.

I certainly can't agree with the maximalist interpretation of what you're ascribing to me. There's all kinds of things that are lawful and within the licensing terms but that would still be unacceptable.

But I do not think that mere use of open source software is abuse of the maintainer, even if the use is for profit. Nor is security research or reporting bugs. (But inversely the maintainer has no obligation to those users, no obligation to fix or acknowledge the bugs. The new security disclaimer seems like a great way to change the userbase without having to change the license.)