That doesn't mean it's wrong to criticize his choices, so long as it's done without being insulting.
Those are demands. The toy project one is relatively low cost, but "he should have given reasons" brings with its lots of effort to do right - and then you get to do it over and over again, because the masses can fling shit at you faster than you can reason about it.
critcism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
"he should have ..." is clearly an expression of disapproval.
Of course he didn't, in the legal sense of the term. And then people didn't have to stop criticizing him, in the legal sense of the term.
And obviously for the ethical / moral point of view, people have vastly different opinions, otherwise there would not be this debate.
You publish your code to Github, you're part of a community. You make it open and allow for contributions and see people are using it, you should be clear about your level of give-a-shit.
Hell no. It that were the case, I'd never publish anything.
> You make it open and allow for contributions and see people are using it, you should be clear about your level of give-a-shit.
It is YOUR responsibility to see that for yourself by watching how the project is actually maintained.
Why do so many people insist on being aloof and unhelpful in communicating to users of their software? What is so hard about offering a modicum of context for what people can expect of you as a maintainer? It's so ideologically rigid and unreasonable.
Maybe. The main issue I see with github is that it's impossible to disable pull requests there. We have that issue in the coreboot project, which uses github as a read-only mirror.
Maybe we should just shut that down to make clear that coreboot is not part of the "GitHub community".