It's been a while since I read this rant but I suspect you have projected the "all of open source" into your paraphrasing of what he said and that in fact he never purported to speak for all open source.

You are projecting your beliefs upon the structure of the article. In the actual article, Cognitect wasn't mentioned until five paragraphs later. The first five paragraphs talked exactly about open source in general terms not limited to Cognitech or to Clojure. What I quoted was the very first sentence.

Did you read what you quoted?

What I pointed out through a rhetorical question is that the article's first sentence tells others their opinions of open source are limited, but the premise of that statement is that the author is separate from that rule and by the act of writing this statement is setting a broad opinion which others are not allowed to have, due to the same statement imposing a limitation on them.

I was pointing out that the first sentence of the article contains a contradiction in its premise.

This isn’t a contradiction - the claim is that the only entitlement one has with open source is that which is outlined in the licenses. This is objectively the floor across all projects. From there, entitlements are granted by project authors and sit outside those granted by the licenses. The error, which is sadly common, is to presume entitlements of the latter kind follow necessarily from the former.

The problem is that this is relying on equivocation around the word "entitlement." One type of "entitlement" is an actual right that you can fight over in court, it's called the license. The other type of "entitlement" is just a pejorative euphemism for the word "expectation." By slipping back and forth between those meanings, you can create the impression of a proof that people's expectations are a type of illegal assault.

The UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, signed by the vast majority of nations says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." So I think he is in fact entitled to say how all of open source ought to work.

You made my point! Thank you.

I don't see how I made your point. There is a big difference between freedom to express and freedom from compulsion. He hasn't claimed that others don't have freedom to express - he has claimed that their expectations of him don't entitle them to his labor.

Another right from that same document states, "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."