Those "moral requirements & duties" usually go into a "Code of Conduct" or "Contributor Guidelines" instead of in the license of the project, as they are separate from the distribution, usage and modification of the code.
And rightly so. The community seems to constantly mix "open source" the distribution model with the "open/community" development model that some projects adhere to.
We would all be better off by being more precise with what words we use to describe all of these things, and what our expectations are. Just like what Hickey did here.
I am referring to moral duties that exist independent of the project they are in. An individual project's Code of Conduct may recognize pre-existing moral requirements, and may apply additional moral goals that the project upholds, but it can neither supplant nor disclaim moral requirements that pre-date it. If an update to a project adds a keylogger and exfiltrates your login information, that project has failed in its moral duty, even if not explicitly stated in the project's CoC.
Well, one of the problems is that there are groups (though few) who want the social sheen of having an "open development process" while not actually accepting input. The fact that the source is published is deliberately conflated with the idea that the community is open, for marketing purposes.
And rightly so. The community seems to constantly mix "open source" the distribution model with the "open/community" development model that some projects adhere to.
We would all be better off by being more precise with what words we use to describe all of these things, and what our expectations are. Just like what Hickey did here.