It seems more interesting to discuss the implied underlying situation here than focus on any individual actor's tone.
It seems from the interaction that a part of IBM has (1) taken software that explicitly has no warranties, (2) repackaged it and sold it for profit by unilaterally adding new warranties of their own creation, and (3) attempted to redirect the burden of compliance with those warranties to the original authors (who had explicitly disclaimed any such warranties).
It seems from the interaction that a part of IBM has (1) taken software that explicitly has no warranties, (2) repackaged it and sold it for profit by unilaterally adding new warranties of their own creation, and (3) attempted to redirect the burden of compliance with those warranties to the original authors (who had explicitly disclaimed any such warranties).