Do you consider literally anything under an open source license to be relevant to open source ideology?
I'm sure that if I make a folk replacing the flag with nyancat, [email protected] won't come to tell me that I should change the license and make warnings to those who report it, but to delete worthless nonsense.
This is the same thing, and only holds up because lgtb related things generate controversy, either by X-phobes, people like the OP who use us as virtue signaling with low effort content, and of course those who are afraid to point out nonsense for fear of being vilified as X-phobes.
Okay, let's do this then. Show me where in that imaginary tome of "open source ideology" principles that "worthless nonsense" and "low effort content" are cause for dismissal. Who judges what is worthless and low effort, and on what criteria?
It's fairly obvious that LGBTQIA+ related subjects are controversial, especially from the stink that you and a few others raise reflexively at the sight of a rainbow flag. Frankly, your opinions and bloviating is more worthless and low effort than an app that does nothing except display a flag in the system tray.
To me it looks like one of that cases when a law (a rule in this case) is kind of obeyed but not how it's supposed to be obeyed and the intention of the action actually does violate it.
Check the comments and you'll see an admin talking about it. The icon wasn't even open-source when the post was created. But my original point was that the icon might have been an act of law abuse performed to justify talking about an unrelated topic in this community.
They said they forgot to add the license. I think it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe it was always meant to be open source, even before being posted here.