What the hell does "complete" even mean? No software is ever "complete".

Literally every open source license says something along the lines of "there are probably bugs and stuff; it's not my problem".

I really can't even comprehend this mindset of "unless it'll work for people without issues, don't put it on github".

In this specific instance, calling the library "incomplete" is a less-than-completely-accurate characterization. What the issue creator wants is easily possible using the library, but cannot be included as default behavior because of licensing issues. This is hinted at, but perhaps not made as explicit as it could be, in the README.

It is perfectly complete and exactly what it claims to be. It's just not what whatsisname expected it to be. Are we expecting OSS developers to be mind readers now?

So the alternative in your view is to not offer anything at all unless it's complete by some objective standard? Does that really sound preferable to you?

No-one asked for blue ribbons or sympathy.

If someone whines about a perceived shortcoming in stuff which has been released incomplete, but free and modifiable, then they can expect short shrift.

Apparently we give out blue ribbons and $$$$ to corporations who deliver incomplete software. So yeah, why the fuck not for open source? ;)