If the author doesn't want to put the appropriate processes in place to handle security problems, bug fixes, and the what, than this is of course his prerogative, but he should find it no surprise when he gets roasted on a spit by the user community that surrounds him.
People get angry when tools that they depend on don't work, regardless of whether or not they had to pay for those tools. A cavalier attitude towards the user-base will only incense them further, and while it may not matter to the tool-maker that people are going elsewhere, rather than use his free tools, the negative press can easily destroy a career or ten.
I'm not saying that this is right; merely that this is the way things are.
I agree that as a developer of an open source project, it helps your project to be ... helpful. But at some point, after it's clear that your project is essential, you can defer some of that work to the user community.
Want that feature? Send a patch (because, yeah, that's a good feature... but I don't need it and I don't feel like writing it.)
People get angry when tools that they depend on don't work, regardless of whether or not they had to pay for those tools. A cavalier attitude towards the user-base will only incense them further, and while it may not matter to the tool-maker that people are going elsewhere, rather than use his free tools, the negative press can easily destroy a career or ten.
I'm not saying that this is right; merely that this is the way things are.