This really shouldn't be downvoted, as it is a valid stance (one I don't share, BTW, or not much).

Human social instincts strongly push toward this position, informed (largely) by metaphors and similies rooted in excludable goods even when nonrivalrous (eg. the prototypical Commons).

Software, though - and most especially Free Software - is part of another realm entirely, or at least verges on it: Things that largely grow, proliferate, and spread themselves, even if they do it through coopting human agency. Examples are stories, families, communities, ideologies, movements, hobbies, cultures, and most importantly, individual humans themselves.

"If you save a life you become responsible for it" is one of the few succinct ways this has been expressed, which of course doesn't do much to delineate the obligation or its limits. But the sentiment is clear.

To what extent can an author (of fiction or non-fiction) disclaim responsibility for their work if it takes on a quasi-life of its own? An artist for a work that is misappropriated?

How difficult is it to disavow a family that you have broken with? An embarrassing ancestor who accumulated the family fortune through unsavory means? A child that has grown to become a notorious public enemy?

Can a founder of a movement disavow its extremist fringes?

Does a celebrity actually have any responsibility at all toward their fans?

How difficult is it (or should it be) for a hobbyist to avoid being associated with those who share their hobby, but who also make the hobby unwelcoming to the Other?

By now you must have a dozen objections to this post, of all the ways writing software is not like these things I've mentioned, but there is also something deeply similar, though it is difficult to articulate exactly what that is.

An author of software, and more precisely a maintainer of software, is responsible in some sense for the nebulous thing that the group of people that software draws together is, even while also being a member of that same group.

That the responsibility does not necessarily create much of an attendant obligation is not necessarily clear, when so many social customs are predicated on such obligations being implicit (at least).

Even less clear is the extent to which such obligations, when voluntarily assumed, can then be discarded.

An analogy may be helpful here:

Having moved to a new city, and subsequent to joining some existing social group or club, you volunteered to take care of some aspect of a shared recreation (to bring the salad for a weekend picnic, for example), but you then discover that there are additional logistical and even financial costs involved that you didn't anticipate (the picnic starts much earlier than you're used to, the group includes many vegetarians and vegans who are used to having an extensive variety of salads at such occasions, etc.).

So, having voluntarily assumed this obligation, but not having given what could be objectively called fully informed consent, to what extent are you still responsible for addressing the expectations of this group (as a group, and also as individuals) you're now disappointing?

And how do the analogous obligations change (and grow) when you are (effectively) the founder of the group?

This morass of interpersonal relationships is the sort of thing that being a software maintainer requires navigating, and the situation isn't made simpler just because the central artefact the group revolves around is some non-excludable, non-rivalrous software that is being created and maintained, especially when the name attached to the software is just such a rivalrous good.

Disavowal of otherwise implicit responsibilities and obligations is something that seems to crop up more often in recent decades than previously, from IANAL and TINLA (or even IAAL, But Not Your Lawyer), to the increasingly commonplace "I Do Not Speak For My Employer".

Such disavowals being (apparently) necessary, authoring and maintaining software clearly also strongly implies at least some responsibilities and obligations, at least as a great many humans perceive things, and it is worth discussing just what those are, as well as when and how to effectively disavow them when not appropriate.

As I said at the outset, I personally feel the set of those obligations is smaller than the parent post states (neither software nor the community that forms around it is something that you are obliged to actively nurture), but my disagreement doesn't imply a downvote. It is a valid contribution to the debate on this topic.