So many commenters are just plain rude. They got free value for along time. Someone giving the free value decides to allocate their time otherwise. And the long-time receivers of the free value now cannot behave.
And you seem to make excuses for them...
It's just rude to behave like that after having enjoyed gifts for so long. They behave like spoiled children. Nothing to defend IMHO.
You're essentially saying that only users who contribute to OSS are worthy of attention and support. This is no different than saying that only commercial users, or those from specific countries, backgrounds, or industries are worthy of the same.
Those users who create issues, request features, and, yes, ask for support, are as valuable as those who contribute code or money. They're all part of the same community of users that help build a successful product. And they do it for free for you, because they're passionate about the product itself.
If you think otherwise then you should make your terms of service explicit by using a restrictive license and business model. OSS is not for you.
Yes, some people can be rude, demanding, and unworthy of your attention. But you make those boundaries clear, not treat all non-paying users as entitled children.
True in theory but no one has infinite time to distinguish correctly between good feature requester or bad one.
FOSS licenses already do that: they shout at you in all-caps that the authors PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
Meanwhile the licenses don't say anything about communities.
For better or worse, OSI convinced everyone that "open source" is synonymous with using specific licenses that meet their definition. If that's the case, then how can it be a "fundamental misunderstanding of OSS" to strictly interpret OSS by the terms of the licenses, which don't mention any sort of "social contract", while they do include language explicitly contrary to such expectations of users?
Because free and open-source software is more than a set of licenses approved by some governing body.
It is part of a social movement and ideology pursuing the open sharing of knowledge, and building communities around this where everyone can benefit, not just a select few. Software is one aspect of this, due to its roots in the hacker counterculture of the 1970s, but the core idea extends beyond it.
You can read more about this in many places. Bruce Perens specifically refers to a "social contract" in this early post[1] on the Debian mailing list. This is what is usually referred to as the "spirit" of open source, and is not strictly encoded in any official definition. The success of OSS depends on implicit mutual trust and respect, not on explicit rules and licenses.
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1997/msg00017.html
If I host a code repo on an otherwise static site, with no ability to contact the author or engage in a community, it is still widely considered "open source" if it uses an OSI-approved license.
Likewise if I host the same code repo on Github and disable issues and set the pull request template to say "All PRs will be closed and I will shout expletives at you for wasting my time", if it uses an OSI-approved license then it is still open source per the OSI's own definition.