People who feel entitled to have features implemented for them are wrong (and I agree with the OP about being a "responsible consumer"), but I can't agree with

People who feel entitled to have features implemented for them are wrong (and I agree with the OP about being a "responsible consumer"), but I can't agree with the OP when he says that Tom Dale (the guy who said "open source is a responsibility") is wrong. The context of Tom Dale's quote is a bug in an open source project that rm -rf'd users' files: https://plus.google.com/111465598045192916635/posts/CkmmbjmvebM https://plus.google.com/111465598045192916635/posts/Ckmmbjmv... Does the OP really think open source maintainers don't have a responsibility to try to prevent that? He talks about the warranty clause in open source licenses, but the warranty clause is legalese and it's a far cry from how open source really works. In reality, most open source maintainers take pride in their work and try to avoid causing harm even though the warranty clause would technically let them get away with it. I like the wording of the GPL copyright notice: "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." I think that captures the spirit of open source much better: legally we have no responsibility, but we're still going to try to make it useful.