The argument stands on its own merits, not my qualifications. You've extrapolated DannyBee's mention of some risk of implied-warranty lawsuit all the way up to

The argument stands on its own merits, not my qualifications. You've extrapolated DannyBee's mention of some risk of implied-warranty lawsuit all the way up to "lose your house many years later because you chose a whimsical license". But, there are no examples of something like that happening in the open source domain. It's worst-case speculation, without precedent. That's spreading "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" to deter a particular course of action. Now perhaps, fear is justified, and the uncertainty will be resolved in some future case that confirms it was wise to be afraid. (Literal "FUD" isn't necessarily false!) Or maybe there's a prior case that hasn't yet been mentioned – that's why I've asked for an example. But for now, the idea of someday losing your house over a insufficient disclaimer-of-warranties on freely-published, unmarketed, uncompensated source code is just a scary bedtime story. A few years ago there was legalistic FUD about how releasing code as public domain was dangerous; without a license you'd be at risk, and no amount of disclaimerizing could save you, because without either a license or contract, the disclaimers had no force. Thankfully, that FUD has receded, so that now even legalistic worrywarts can recommend the CC0 or unlicense.org dedication as a safe and reasonable approach. I predict such common-sense progress will continue, driven by irreverent young programmers with no patience for obsolete complexity. But that's a socioeconomic prediction, not a legal opinion. If being airtight-alright by all the lawyers and judges is someone's top priority, they should take your circumspect advice.