So! I developed and published a software https://github.com/poetaman/arttime. Thinking it would be beneficial for users to be able to install it from homebrew, I published a package on that platform. Recently, I realized that there is problem. Unlike when a user runs install.sh from arttime's cloned GitHub repository, a user installing from homebrew doesn't get a crucial installation note. The note asks users to take a few steps before using the software, so it runs correctly at their end. The only installation message homebrew's installer print from developer is called "caveats". But they won't let me add a note for new users to take a crucial step before trying to run arttime, because of a legalism of what "caveats" stand for in homebrew's lingo. They are not open to other kinds of installation notes either. The lead of Homebrew stepped in and steered the conversation to irrationality. Talking of his 15 years of experience and what not instead of seeing it from users and developer experience perspective. I requested them to remove my software till a satisfying solution is found. Then they started using the word "law", and because it is not written in law, they won't remove my software. And I have been told to add some bloat code in my application to notify the users at run time to update their computer settings. This is definitely one instance where open source software publishing platforms have failed us. An open source developer should have freedom to stop publishing a software from a platform that is forcing them to add bloat code.
