To me it is a smear to say it’s corrupt and/or malicious when a maintainer takes the project into a direction they want like this. It’s demonstrably true that t

To me it is a smear to say it’s corrupt and/or malicious when a maintainer takes the project into a direction they want like this. It’s demonstrably true that this is now intended behavior of the code. Disagreeing with the changes, not liking the changes, if it causes problems for your projects etc does not automatically mean it’s malicious, a vulnerability, or corrupt. I feel this language is used intentionally to smear the maintainer and paper over a real conversation over open source, responsibilities of maintainers and consumers, and the ecosystem as a whole. Instead it’s all about the “vulnerability” caused by the maintainers choices to commit “malicious” code. Did the maintainer drastically change the software? You bet they did. Does that mean it’s malicious, a vulnerability, and/or corrupt? No. This isn’t an illicit cryptominer or process injection etc. the host machines are not being exploited in a malicious way. You can disagree with the actions and what they are doing etc, but labels matter, and I think this is an intentional labeling of this to skirt around having real conversations around OSS, maintainability, the role of consumers etc