Yes. The honestly somewhat dodgy no-warranty clauses in open-source licenses have always been justified on the basis that unpaid volunteers can't afford to be e

Yes. The honestly somewhat dodgy no-warranty clauses in open-source licenses have always been justified on the basis that unpaid volunteers can't afford to be exposed to (potentially very serious) legal liability for their work. It's a bit astonishing that now they're being presented as a supposed reason why OS devs never have any ethical responsiblity to their users (beyond refraining from active malice, presumably?) (And in case it needs saying, no-one is suggesting that devs have an unlimited responsiblity to serve or take shit from users, or that users don't have reciprocal obligations.) By that logic the many sleazy Kickstarters, scam PACs, do-nothing gravy-train charities and the like that manage to stay just this side of the law are also all fine and wonderful.