it’s not the tone (which i’ve also noticed can be brisk but i don’t read too much into it, tech discussions can be that way), it’s the fact that andrew doesn’t see the scenario of somebody forking a plug-in and releasing a new version under the same name/slug as problematic. there are nuances for sure, but i would think something like this is not such a hypothetical scenario, and i would expect the ethical guidelines to mention something about it as opposed to every developer having to include it explicitly.
