> should

I wouldn't say we are entitled to an explanation of why an open source project is titled any more than we are entitled to the project being open source in the first place.

It's not about entitlement; if the purpose of a name isn't to give people an easy way to remember something, what good is it?

If the developer wanted to increase interest in the project, explaining the name could only further this goal.

You're right of course. It's just as someone who struggles with naming projects, I often get annoyed when I see comments on HN focusing on naming things rather than the cool work that has been shared and donated to the community. However on reflection, on this occasion my comment was unfair.

That might justify using "should" in a prudential sense, but not a moral sense.

Or any more than we are entitled to an explanation of the name of any business, individual, or [noun] we encounter.

It doesn't need any explanation, but if you do get it, that is a nice little winking reference.