You do not have to use SemVer if you do not like it, and your considerations are valid and are good points. However, there are other considerations. Allow mark

You do not have to use SemVer if you do not like it, and your considerations are valid and are good points. However, there are other considerations. Allow marking old version numbers as "regressive"; any regressive version number is never considered compatible with any other version, whether regressive or not. Allow a version to have multiple version numbers that alias each other; that might be appropriate in the case of radically rewriting the implementation in a way that is supposed to remain compatible. However, that won't solve everything (nor does it even come close). It is necessary for package maintainers to notice if a version has security problems that older and/or newer versions don't, and to do whatever is appropriate in the given situation. Sometimes a program is compatible with multiple versions of a package even if they are not otherwise compatible (it is related to what you describe). Sometimes a program depends on internal details (or bugs) which are subjected to being changed. Sometimes there are other reasons why a user might not want to upgrade (including hardware compatibility). Sometimes conflicts are possible; depending on the situation there might or might not be a way to resolve this. So, like some other messages mentions, using semantic version numbers won't solve everything, but they won't break everything either. Use or don't use semantic version numbers according to your choice, but whichever way you choose should be documented, and anyone using them should be aware of these considerations. FOSS is helpful that you can fork software and modify it for your use if needed, in case you want some but not all of the changes that have been made, or if you can make your own improvements.