It sounds to me like that person was at least helping to legitimize and popularize the software they use. Open source needs users just as bad as it needs contributors to be successful. Linux would have died if it never had large scale adoption by "parasites".
Most open source contributors aren't doing it to be paid; if there isn't enough demand or support they simply stop working on it and that's it. Usually once a project is big enough then there's enough demand from users that big companies start donating both money and employee time towards a project (AWS for example had dedicated employees contributing to Redis, and Linux as a foundation is supported by countless companies). The emphasis is on the money going towards supporting the project to keep it sustained, not maximizing profit.
> Usually once a project is big enough then there's enough demand from users that big companies start donating both money and employee time towards a project
I don't agree with “usually” there, I think it is an exception rather than the rule.
Where it happens, it tends to be higher profile, top-level, visible, projects that get this treatment from the commercial bodies that rely on them. The smaller projects that they might depend upon are likely to stay less visible, less thanked, and unsupported by those using them (directly or indirectly). What has happened with xzutils is a very good example of this and the potential dangers the situation poses.
I don't know how we should address this. It certainly isn't the responsibility of people like Collin to address, unless of course they want to take on that responsibility.
> if there isn't enough demand or support they simply stop working on it and that's it
Sometimes even if there is enough demand they stop, as is their right, when other priorities come up in their life (or they simply lose interest). A “community” using their stuff does not, and should not, automatically make them beholden to that community.
