3 ms·

The license very clearly tells you that you should not assume that the software is "production ready" and that if you do, that's on you. > THE SOFTWARE IS PROV

The license very clearly tells you that you should not assume that the software is "production ready" and that if you do, that's on you. > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ...

cweagans 5y ago
You beat me to it :)
GoToRO 5y ago
You quote doesn't mean what you think it means. It just means "we will hide the real state of our software because we can, so you can choose to loose valuable time evaluating it now or else more time fixing it later. We could tell exactly how production ready it is, but we choose not to."
- henryfjordan 5y ago
  The code is open-source, nobody is hiding the "real state of the software". "Production-ready" means different things to different people. For many, "production-ready" means "we have a support contract with the software vendor". In that case, the project would never be usable in production. To others with higher risk tolerance, a 1.0.0 release is all you need! You'd have to consider each user before making a recommendation about production-readiness. Instead the author offers the software AS-IS and you can decide for yourself. The author doesn't owe anyone anything, least of all a personal consultation about whether using the software is prudent.
- jjav 5y ago
  No, the license means exactly what it says. An open source project (in most licenses) offers zero assurance of it being usable for production and that's what it means. If you want to use it for production you need to either (a) do whatever evaluations you feel necessary to ensure it will be stable for production for your needs, or (b) pay the authors for a signed support contract so they take on that responsibility.
- mattgreenrocks 5y ago
  Sounds rather uncharitable. If that's what you think, then maybe open source software is not a good fit for use in your projects. Which is totally fine! Some domains benefit from having most of the code immediately at hand and under your control.

cweagans 5y ago

You beat me to it :)

GoToRO 5y ago

You quote doesn't mean what you think it means. It just means "we will hide the real state of our software because we can, so you can choose to loose valuable time evaluating it now or else more time fixing it later. We could tell exactly how production ready it is, but we choose not to."

henryfjordan 5y ago
The code is open-source, nobody is hiding the "real state of the software". "Production-ready" means different things to different people. For many, "production-ready" means "we have a support contract with the software vendor". In that case, the project would never be usable in production. To others with higher risk tolerance, a 1.0.0 release is all you need! You'd have to consider each user before making a recommendation about production-readiness. Instead the author offers the software AS-IS and you can decide for yourself. The author doesn't owe anyone anything, least of all a personal consultation about whether using the software is prudent.
jjav 5y ago
No, the license means exactly what it says. An open source project (in most licenses) offers zero assurance of it being usable for production and that's what it means. If you want to use it for production you need to either (a) do whatever evaluations you feel necessary to ensure it will be stable for production for your needs, or (b) pay the authors for a signed support contract so they take on that responsibility.
mattgreenrocks 5y ago
Sounds rather uncharitable. If that's what you think, then maybe open source software is not a good fit for use in your projects. Which is totally fine! Some domains benefit from having most of the code immediately at hand and under your control.