One can argue that this is implicit in FOSS licenses, including the GPL. If the author can be held liable for any defects, then they can't really share their co

One can argue that this is implicit in FOSS licenses, including the GPL. If the author can be held liable for any defects, then they can't really share their contributions, and FOSS contributions would only be possible by entities with well-paid lawyers. This is against the spirit of both Open Source and Free Software. Furthermore, similar clauses have existed for patents. E.g., if you use an Apache licensed library, but sue one of the contributors for patent infringement having to do with the library in question, then any grants of the Apache license terminate, so you can then be countersued. The way you framed your text, this would qualify as an interference with Freedom 0, as you can't eat your cake and have it too. Lest we forget, here's what the MIT license, one of the most permissive ones, have to say: "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 AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." So the MIT license already says what you think is against Freedom 0.