> The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source.

That's how I read this article. He argues that it's a misconception that "open source" implies the entitlements that he rejects. There may be projects which offer such entitlements (though it's unlikely phrased like that), but other projects don't, and nobody should assume they are entitled to anything just because of the "open source" label -- beyond the rights guaranteed by the chosen license.

He argues for freedom. The programmers freedom to ignore anything beyond the license, and the users freedom to go choose a different project if they don't like the choices of some project. That's also what you are saying.

> ” The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source.”

I think that’s exactly the point he’s making. To phrase it another way, open source is orthogonal to the relationship between the stewards and the community.

> Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project.

You can always fork the project if you disagree with how it's being maintained (or not maintained, as is the case often enough). Right to Fork is integral to FLOSS.

He is clearly responding to people who have a misunderstanding of what open source is, so you cannot blame him for correcting the wrong understanding as if he is the one who defined open source to include these additional expectations that go beyond the license. He is merely pointing out how the way he runs his project is also in accordance with the license.

Maybe it would be better to understand the context of events that lead to the letter than argue with generic platitudinal responses about what open source is that are totally debatable, e.g., you are only entitled to whatever source code they give you and nothing more, and you are only entitled to distribute your modifications if the open source license allows it, redistribution is not automatically a feature of all open source.

It’s certainly true that there are users out there who expect unreasonable things to happen just because they say so, right? Have you been on the receiving end of user demands? I certainly have. Your reaction might be different if you knew that part of the story. This is why your reaction sounds like it might land under Hickey’s qualification “If you don't recognize yourself in the message above, it's not for/about you!” He’s speaking to the unreasonable people who have demanded things of him and his project, not the reasonable ones who already understand what open source is or is not, right?

*edit: there is some context here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31958698

Rich is making the same argument as you are: a project being open source does not determine whether users are entitled to be part of the development process for that project.

>Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project.

Open source isn't a a code of conduct. It is a licensed though. The subject and title is not about random projects, it's about clojure and open source.

The best explanation I've heard is that OSS is free as in puppy, not free as in beer