I'm noticing this argument a lot these days, and I think it stems from something I can't define - "soft" vs. "hard" or maybe "high-trust" vs "low-trust".

I always warned people that if they "buy" digital things (music, movies) it's only a license, and can be taken away. And people intellectually understand that, but don't think it'll really happen. And then years go by, and it does, and then there's outrage when Amazon changes Roald Dahl's books, or they snatch 1984 right off your kindle after you bought it.

So there's a gap between what is "allowed" and what is "expected". I find this everywhere in polite society.

Was just talking to a new engineer on my team, and he had merged some PRs, but ignored comments from reviewers. And I asked him about that, and he said "Well, they didn't block the PR with Request Changes, so I'm free to merge." So I explained that folks won't necessarily block the PR, even though they expect a response to their questions. Yes, you are allowed to merge the PR, but you'll still want to engage with the review comments.

I view open source the same way. When a company offers open source code to the community, releasing updates regularly, they are indeed allowed to just stop doing that. It's not illegal, and no one is entitled to more effort from them. But at the same time, they would be expected to engage responsibly with the community, knowing that other companies and individuals have integrated their offering, and would be left stranded. I think that's the sentiment here: you're stranding your users, and you know it. Good companies provide a nice offramp when this happens.