There's a point where it's too much and it just feels like a trojan horse when later you stop caring for your free users.
The author did not in fact, make the project worse, all they did was not accept a change, and that is entirely different than making it worse.
Even those who stood to benefit from the change have not received a degraded experience in comparison to the current state of affairs, but the same experience as the current state of affairs, since no change occurred. It is truly within the author's rights to do this, in any case.
One should avoid a sense of entitlement to additional and ever-increasing quantities of free work when free work has already been done.
A change to make the documentation easier for LLM scrapers to inhale.
What would be the point? It would, in no way, improve anything. Probably not even for LLMs.
I am astounded the gentleman responded at all. I think all the talk of money (whilst urgent and catastrophic) is a red herring
I got bit by that many times and do my best to avoid it but when it happens it's a stab in the back.
This is very different from, say, the minio situation, where they were actively removing feature before finally closing development down entirely. Whether tailwind will end up going down this route, time will tell. But as of right now, I find this reading to be quite uncharitable.
By not adding an extra "feature" you deemed as essential?
Even more surprising is this is from an 2012 account.
You found their homepage. You found that they didn’t ask for money, and allowed you to use their product for free. You decided to use it.
And now, they’re liars. How dare they try to make money?