That’s different. I’m not here to mark your work but if you publish your work, I’m happy to publicly point out that you’re wrong, especially if you’re Microsoft size and should have work checkers internally and are continually doing the wrong think and putting people at risk as a result.

This isn't the same as bigcorps offloading their compliance costs to open-source ""vendors"". No one's obligated to do anything. The disclosure window is meant to address a tradeoff between giving the dev a chance to fix it, and minimizing users' risk until patch issuance. But if the dev can't fix it, the risk tradeoff shifts and you do have a duty to make it public for users' sake. You can't take it for granted that you're the first one and only one to have found that vulnerability.

They aren't demanding anything of you. The alternative is immediate disclosure of bugs, not indefinite embargo of bugs.

I don't see how they were treated in that way, though?