> GitHub captured the open source ecosystem under the premise that its code and issue tracker will remain open to all. Silently changing the deal afterwards is reprehensible.

It still is "open to all", but you can't abuse the service and expect to retain the ability to abuse the service.

Also where is "silently" coming from? This whole HN page is because someone linked to an article announcing the change...

I'm not really a fan of Microsoft anymore, but some of you have (apparently long ago) turned the corner into "anything Microsoft does that I don't want Microsoft to do is clearly Microsoft being evil" and that is simply not a reality-based viewpoint. sometimes Microsoft is doing something which one could consider "evil", but without knowledge that something evil is happening, you're assuming that evil is happening, and that's not really a valid way to think about things if you want to be heard by anyone.

Are all contributors to open source under a lifetime obligation to never change their level of investment?

Kind of a rhetorical question I guess, for a while I maintained a small open source project and yes, I still get entitled “why did you even publish this if you’re not going to fix the bug I reported” comments. Like, sorry, but my life priorities changed over the intervening 15 years. Fork it and fix it.

Who could have known that Microsoft would pull some shenanigans?

Is 20 years too long ago to learn from then?

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. This has never gone away.