I am inclined to think this a ‘generational’ issue. For those individuals that were using open source before the explosion of the modern internet, open source s

I am inclined to think this a ‘generational’ issue. For those individuals that were using open source before the explosion of the modern internet, open source software was something we could seek out to then use for our own ends. Also, the people who wrote that software were ‘publishing’ it just to get it out there for anyone to use if those people found it useful. Conversely, people who started using open source after the internet exploded, and I think particularly, once being an open source maintainer was seen as an achievement and goal, the attitude changed. Individual users of the software were building things depending on the OSS and felt that their use of the OSS code implied a contract for continued development of that dependency. This feeling is made worse by fiscally gigantic corporations pushing ‘oss’ products and those corporations acting like their continuing to support their product is analogous to a solo dev putting a vim plugin on github. The reality of wide spread large ‘oss’ products and the implied (and often maliciously relied upon) personal obligations of producing OSS have led to the current state. That state being users of some OSS assuming that their usage of the software means the author owes them some obligation by virtue of their need. This whole issue is made worse by large organizations getting social credit and positive marketing by releasing ‘oss’ products. This leads to conflation of individuals releasing code to benefit the commons vs. organizations doing so to capture markets, gain publicity, etc.