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?
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