3 ms·
> It is absurd that anyone can anonymously provide open source code, with no assurances whatsoever, and that can end up in critical software. While you're welc
by peteforde 4y ago
> It is absurd that anyone can anonymously provide open source code, with no assurances whatsoever, and that can end up in critical software.
While you're welcome your position and your ideas on how to solve these problems, I believe that the logic you're applying punishes the provider and not the consumer. Nobody is forcing anyone to use OSS without auditing every damn line, if that's their requirement.
Telling people that share their hard work with strangers for free that they have an ethical responsibility to accept vague "obligations" - as defined by lobbyists and politicians - is not an idea with wings.
- staticassertion 4y agoNobody is telling them to share their work and distribute it to others as a package. As I said, I don't think there should be any restrictions on anyone to publish code.
- peteforde 4y agoI don't know what your background or interest in this issue is, but I'm glad that the overwhelming majority of people do not find this perspective to be reasonable or compelling. In the meantime, if you don't like the MIT license, don't use software published under it.
- staticassertion 4y agoLicensing is completely irrelevant to this discussion.