"I noticed your window was broken, so I took the liberty of helping you, working for free, by posting a sign that says UNLOCKED WINDOW HERE with exact details on how it was broken. I did lots of gratis work for you which you do not need to do yourself now. The world is safer now. Why are you not grateful?"

I mean if we’re going to do sloppy analogies, a bug report for open source software as widely used as ffmpeg is more like “I noticed the trees in the back corner of your free apple orchard are producing apples with trace amounts of heavy metals. I did some literal digging and sent some soil off to the labs and it looks like your back corner field may be contaminated. Here’s a heads up about that, and also just FYI in 90 days, if you haven’t been able to get your soil remediated, I’m going to put up a sign so that people can know to avoid those apples and not get poisoned by your free orchard while it’s getting fixed.”

Yes, this is a good illustration why The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics makes sense when Ffmpeg is allowed to criticise the manner of actions of Google.

I think it’s a good example of why it makes no sense. People are saying they would rather a world where people unknowingly get heavy metal poisoning from apples at the free orchard rather than a world where people are informed that some of the apples in one part of the orchard may have heavy metals in it because the person letting people know about it didn’t also remediate the soil, even though they don’t own the orchard.

That is plainly ridiculous. An orchard without heavy metals is obviously an ideal world in this case, but a world where people are at least informed of the places where the heavy metals are is orders of magnitude better than one where they’re unknowing getting heavy metal poisoning.