If he open sources the project, it would be interesting.

Inversion: until he open-sources it, I am not interested in his plight in the slightest.

seems fair. Refuse to use common sense until someone open sources years of work.

If you're not trying to be civil and respectful, please try. If you are trying, please try harder. Thanks.

He is being perfectly civil. He has succinctly stated a position that you find unpleasant, but that is all. It is not considered "civil" in the non-software world to suggest that someone should give away their possessions before you care about bad things happening to them.

If FB Purity is there for the good of humanity, great; open it up and let the community keep going. But why should I care if it's a primarily financial venture, and someone built their house on quicksand? Building a business on FB by removing new FB features is not bright.

But hes not building a business on FB, hes building a business on browsers to change the way they display FB. This reach alone makes me feel like you're being a bit unreasonable, and the open source demands kind of confirm it.

It was the snark and sarcasm that I was taking issue with. I don't have a strong opinion about the position itself. It's a good point cheapened by coarse delivery. We can do better here.

I don't use this extension, but I just looked at the xpi and crx versions and they are both just javascript, and I didn't find any license mentioned anywhere. So if you believe djb, you can distribute the source + patches until the author explicitly states otherwise.

the source code, clearly has a copyright notice. it is not ok to do what you are suggesting.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting anyone do anything. I was noting that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software is open to various interpretations regarding distribution of patches, etc (djb's interpretation being one example).