That's part of my point. As Nick says, libxml2 was not designed with security in mind and he has no control over how people use it. Yet in the "security only in the critical components" mindset, he's responsible for bearing the costs of security-critical development entirely on his own since daniel left. That sucks.

But this isn't a conversation limited to the big tech parasitism Nick is talking about. A quick check on my FOSS system implicates the text editor, the system monitor, the office suite, the windowing system, the photo editor, flatpak, the IDEs, the internationalization, a few daemons, etc as all depending on libxml2 and its nonexistent security.