You don't get to decide what they want to maintain. They could have just deleted the features. This entire saga has made it so clear to me people that can only

You don't get to decide what they want to maintain. They could have just deleted the features. This entire saga has made it so clear to me people that can only see what is in it for them versus being able to step into the shoes of a maintainer offering something for free. There is literally no obligation to support you at all. Sucks if it puts you in a bad position that's not on the maintainer, there's no legal or social contract they broke in fact that's entirely in the spirit of what OSS is supposed to be. It's not so a bunch of mediocre free loaders can demand continued access to a library they never contribute to and only consume. The correct way to look at this is you have the privilege of consuming the hard work of another person for free and you should be greatful they put in work to make your life easier in an open way when they did not have to ever and at all and understand when the burden on a small team makes it hard for them to continue to support a feature set. There isn't a sacred duty to people who consume something another group opened because they wanted it to exist. That's what the licenses and all the legal bits say. They do it because they want to and if they stop wanting to you can all get bent. Instead they looked for a sustainable middle ground. At least the controversy is making them even more popular.