3 ms·

I'm not suggesting honesty should be behind a paywayll. Honesty should be upfront and it already is, in the license. The license (most, anyway) clearly state t

by jjav 6mo ago

I'm not suggesting honesty should be behind a paywayll. Honesty should be upfront and it already is, in the license. The license (most, anyway) clearly state the software is not necessarily suitable for any purpose and that's all you get. If you require a higher level of confidence than none, then you should be paying for a support contract. All I can say without being repetitive is that if you expect more than nothing when the license specifically says all you can expect is nothing, you might be disappointed more often than not.

hnlmorg 6mo ago
This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. Open source never used to be like that. And in fact, if it did operate the way you claimed, the open source ecosystem would never have grown into even remotely the size it is today. And why you describe absolutely is not how any of more reputable libraries nor maintainers approach open source software. So you might feel like you are legally correct. But you’re still completely missing the point.
- jjav 6mo ago
  > This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. I published my first open source (we didn't call it that) program in the 1980s. I didn't know anything about licenses back then (and the open source licenses we use today didn't yet exist), so I just put a header comment on it saying something along the lines of "This code is public domain, feel free to try it but I can't guarantee it'll work for you." (although I can't remember exact wording). This is how it's always been. > But you’re still completely missing the point. I suggest considering the fact that you're disappointed that open source libraries aren't providing the guarantees you feel they owe you (which they don't) is an indicator that perhaps your expectations are not in line with what open source is all about.

by jjav 6mo ago

hnlmorg 6mo ago

This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. Open source never used to be like that. And in fact, if it did operate the way you claimed, the open source ecosystem would never have grown into even remotely the size it is today. And why you describe absolutely is not how any of more reputable libraries nor maintainers approach open source software. So you might feel like you are legally correct. But you’re still completely missing the point.

jjav 6mo ago
> This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. I published my first open source (we didn't call it that) program in the 1980s. I didn't know anything about licenses back then (and the open source licenses we use today didn't yet exist), so I just put a header comment on it saying something along the lines of "This code is public domain, feel free to try it but I can't guarantee it'll work for you." (although I can't remember exact wording). This is how it's always been. > But you’re still completely missing the point. I suggest considering the fact that you're disappointed that open source libraries aren't providing the guarantees you feel they owe you (which they don't) is an indicator that perhaps your expectations are not in line with what open source is all about.