4 ms·

> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED

> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. This is a pretty bold and loud acknowledgement. What more could you really ask for when even lawyers think this is sufficient.

stanleykm 3y ago
> What more could you really ask for Some signal that the project is being maintained? If it’s not that’s fine but don’t go radio silent and get pissy when people ask if a project is dead… This is not a legal or moral issue it’s just being considerate for others as well. You, the maintainer, made the choice to maintain this project in the public and foster a userbase. This is not a one-way relationship. People spend their time making patches and integrating your software. You are under no obligation to maintain it of course but dont be a dick.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  The reason open source maintainers get pissy is because idiots selectively ignore entire paragraphs of the license that explicitly states the project isn't maintained and you shouldn't imply it is under any circumstances. The author is being extremely considerate. The problem is fools have no respect for author or chosen license. They rather do the opposite of what the author's license says. The only reason we're having this discussion is because there's enough fools that think they might be on to something. The implication is the mistake, not the author for not being explicit enough.
  - stanleykm 3y ago
    The only one being foolish here is you with needless pedantry. Yes the legal contract says that the authors dont owe anyone anything but there is also a social contract at play here that you are apparently not understanding.
    - codingstream 3y ago
      I don't recall there ever being a social contract. Further, what makes you assume everyone is on the same page about what that social contract is? Have you even considered the possibility that there might be differences of opinion on a social contract which are incompatible? It's why the best course of action is to follow the license rather than delusional fantasies. The idea there's a social contract is sophistry. Plain and simple.

stanleykm 3y ago

> What more could you really ask for Some signal that the project is being maintained? If it’s not that’s fine but don’t go radio silent and get pissy when people ask if a project is dead… This is not a legal or moral issue it’s just being considerate for others as well. You, the maintainer, made the choice to maintain this project in the public and foster a userbase. This is not a one-way relationship. People spend their time making patches and integrating your software. You are under no obligation to maintain it of course but dont be a dick.

infamouscow 3y ago
The reason open source maintainers get pissy is because idiots selectively ignore entire paragraphs of the license that explicitly states the project isn't maintained and you shouldn't imply it is under any circumstances. The author is being extremely considerate. The problem is fools have no respect for author or chosen license. They rather do the opposite of what the author's license says. The only reason we're having this discussion is because there's enough fools that think they might be on to something. The implication is the mistake, not the author for not being explicit enough.
- stanleykm 3y ago
  The only one being foolish here is you with needless pedantry. Yes the legal contract says that the authors dont owe anyone anything but there is also a social contract at play here that you are apparently not understanding.
  - codingstream 3y ago
    I don't recall there ever being a social contract. Further, what makes you assume everyone is on the same page about what that social contract is? Have you even considered the possibility that there might be differences of opinion on a social contract which are incompatible? It's why the best course of action is to follow the license rather than delusional fantasies. The idea there's a social contract is sophistry. Plain and simple.