Your reply feels unnecessarily confrontational / aggressive, but I’ll respond anyway.

> Everyone else just maintains backwards compatibility.

Name one piece of software of substantive size and with a history longer than a couple years, which never had a backwards compatibility break ever? Just in case you can name one, then name two instead. Contrary to your statement, 99.99999% of software has a backwards incompatible change at some point. What’s a good way to indicate that to your end users? Semantic versioning.

> Nobody asked you to "improve" you library by breaking it.

So if a major bug is found after release, one should never fix it? Fixing a bug could easily lead to a backwards incompatible break, if nothing else because someone was depending on that buggy behavior.