It’s not the expectation, it’s the reputation of the project. If a project does dumb stuff like taking down existing documentation, that reflects poorly on the project. It shows poor judgement and unreliability.

I don’t require them to be smart and professional, but they should be or will lose users. Thanks to OSS, I can just fork. But being OSS doesn’t mean you can suck and be random and still stay useful to people.

Of course if it’s your project, you’re free to do whatever you would like.

Open source (and by extension a large chunk of software industry) runs on the expectation that people won't do random disruptive things even if it is plainly stated in the license that there is no such guarantee. Perhaps we should move away from this expectation (and events such as these will certainly accelerate the transition), but this is the current state of affairs.

> Open source (and by extension a large chunk of software industry) runs on the expectation that people won't do random disruptive things even if it is plainly stated in the license that there is no such guarantee.

Counterpoint: much of our industry is often described as being in the business of disruptive technology.

It's been educational for me to watch how developers are reacting when they're on the receiving end of the disruption.

There's industry disruption and there's bs like this. If I threw in a random CTD and called it "DISRUPTION" , I'd be rightly laughed out of the room.