> Just because not everybody has access != a person inside a gated area doesn't get to see. You made that leap. Well, I guess that was somewhat of a leap, but

> Just because not everybody has access != a person inside a gated area doesn't get to see. You made that leap. Well, I guess that was somewhat of a leap, but it doesn't really make a difference to the argument: The point is that they are suggesting that preferring code that fewer people can look at somehow solves a problem. > If you are building software on top of software that carries no guarantees then you are liable unless you also somehow make no guarantees. Well, yeah? But what does that have to do with FOSS? Neither does FOSS imply that there are no guarantees, nor does proprietary software imply that there are guarantees. Hence: What is the relevance? The only difference between FOSS and proprietary software in this regard is that with FOSS you have the option to do an audit yourself and offer guarantees on that basis without creating a huge unknown risk for yourself, or you could possibly buy auditing services on the free market that come with some sort of guarantee from a third party. There is no option that you have with proprietary software that is somehow impossible with FOSS, which is why the suggestion that not using FOSS for commercial projects somehow solves a problem is strange at best. > Are you able to sell software without guarantees? Maybe? Well, given the tons of massively broken proprietary commercial software out there? Yeah, obviously you can?