The sibling comment already thoroughly addressed all of this, so there's no need to me to do so other than to say that, despite your good intentions, you don't seem to have even the slightest understanding of open source.
> despite your good intentions, you don't seem to have even the slightest understanding of open source
Please. Resorting to ad hominem when you don't have good arguments against someone's opinion is intellectually lazy.
> At no point does it say anything like "I am obliged to maintain this for you forever, or even at all, let alone to your liking"
I'm well familiar with most OSS licenses. I never claimed they said this.
My point was about an unwritten social contract of not being an asshole. When you do a public deed, such as publishing OSS, and that project gains users, you have certain obligations to those users at a more fundamental level than the license you chose, whether you want to acknowledge this or not.
When you ignore and intentionally alienate users, you can't be surprised when you receive backlash for it. We can blame this on users and say that they're greedy, and that as a developer you're allowed to do whatever you want, becuase—hey, these people are leeching off your hard work!—but that's simply hostile.
The point of free software is to provide a good to the world. If your intention is to just throw something over the fence and not take users into consideration—which are ultimately the main reason we build and publish software in the first place—then you're simply abusing this relationship. You want to reap the benefits of exposure that free software provides, while having zero obligations. That's incredibly entitled, and it would've been better for everyone involved if you had kept the software private.
There's literally no ad hominem where you claimed there was. That itself is ad hominem.
I'll go further this time - not only do you not understand open source licensing or ecosystem even slightly, but it's genuinely concerning that you think that someone sharing some code somehow creates "a relationship" with anyone who looks at it. The point of free software is free software, and the good to the world is whatever people make of that.
Again, the only people who seem to be truly bothered by any of this are people who don't use datastar.
Don't use it. In fact, I suspect that the datastar maintainers would prefer that you, specifically, don't use it. Use it to spite them! We don't care.
I also retract my statement about you having good intentions/communicating in good faith. I won't respond to you again.
> the only people who seem to be truly bothered by any of this are people who don't use datastar.
Yeah, those silly people who were previously interested in Datastar, and are criticizing the hostility of how this was handled. Who cares what they think?
> Don't use it. We don't care. In fact, I suspect that the datastar maintainers would prefer that you, specifically, don't use it.
Too bad. I'll use it to spite all of you!
> I also retract my statement about you having good intentions/communicating in good faith.
Here's the text of the mit license https://mit-license.org/
At no point does it say anything like "I am obliged to maintain this for you forever, or even at all, let alone to your liking"