A stranger providing you a service for free doesn't have an ethical obligation to answer your emails.

Personally I think they do

I'd be interested to learn more about the moral framework that arrives at such a conclusion.

Broadly speaking, the hacker ethos has relied on a "share and enjoy" metric, a direct reference to a bit from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. People sometimes forget that the bit goes on to offer specific suggestions for those who are receiving something for free and have complaints regarding the flavor directed at the provider.

I think that even if you offer a service for free you are obliged to offer a level of quality and support, much like how you can’t just sell poisonous ice cream. I don’t believe in “share and enjoy” and I don’t think that “warranty free” is morally good

> you can't sell poisonous ice cream

There's licensing around selling food. I wouldn't be against "license to practice software development," but I'd note that (a) that's a very different world than the one we live in and (b) I don't know that most of the open source software we enjoy, hack on, and bemoan would exist in a universe where licensing standards made every software engineer who had authored it beholden to a minimum standard of quality before distributing it.

Would apache have survived in a world where software engineers, or their software, had to be quality-certified? Would MySQL? Would Linux?

Again, law is not morality.

> Would apache have survived in a world where software engineers, or their software, had to be quality-certified? Would MySQL? Would Linux?

Yes

It actually has, that sense of obligation is me, since I am the universe

Other independent observers may disagree on your self-assessment.

If they think that I’m not the universe, they’re wrong