..so, in a hyphothetical case, let's say "you" published some code under the MIT license. You then got 10k emails.
What's your point? What do you want to say?
What's your point? What do you want to say?
>I never intended for wiringPi to be statically linked either – and thanks to the incompetence of many people who have done just this, I’ve had over 10,000 emails from people who upgraded their Pi and found that code stopped working because they were reliant on a system (typically some java/javascript/node or home automation or UPS thing) which had statically linked an older version
My point is, the author intended the project to be used for X. It was used for Y. Author doesn't want to support Y. Author gets bombarded with e-mails complaining they don't support Y. This isn't "suddenly creating drama like this" or "also somehow expecting to make money off this" as you asserted.
Another pertinent part of the article you seem to be skipping is:
>Add to that the people who have “bludgeoned” wiringPi to work on other fruit Pi platforms, but left my name as the contact email …
You claiming the author is just creating drama solely because of money is a gross misreading of the situation.
The point, and the reason I've downvoted you, is that Gordon clearly spelled out that his frustration is not about money. Gordon's clearly articulated frustration is in having to deal with demanding and abusive users. By pursuing the argument that Gordon's angry about making an insufficient amount of money you're perpetuating a strawman argument.
No one deserved to be verbally abuse from total strangers for things beyond his control.
Yes, the author could simply ignore the requests. But we ought to aim higher than 'silently accept the harassment and do nothing,' for the betterment of everyone.
It seems like you only think the author has a right to be frustrated if the license is used in an illegal way, not if they license is followed but the users are abusive.