It seems bogus, yes. Since you mentioned a project I started - ansible, and I am no longer with the company and stopped working on the project as a result of

It seems bogus, yes. Since you mentioned a project I started - ansible, and I am no longer with the company and stopped working on the project as a result of that, you could consider that me one of those truck hit. While the number of Ansible company folks on the core team is about 3 or 4 now (much of the company is devoted to Ansible Tower as a product), I think ansible's truck factor is about infinite though, because the code isn't complicated, and any user could pick it up, the code is pretty safe from any event. The license is stuck as GPL due to no copyright assignment (100% intentional!), though 'ansible' in context is trademarked. So people shouldn't be worried. The code will live, because it's basic stuff that hundreds of python developers can get their heads around (and do, based on a lot of long-tail contributions). So, unless I'm full of it, it was designed to survive ANYTHING, on purpose, and especially sought out making the code non-clever, and make it easy enough for someone to hack where they needed to extend or diverge from what we did with it. Code that has a liability based on a disappearing author is usually the complex code, in a specific problem domain, or something complex and poorly documented or poorly commented, or built with proprietary tools. Ansible is none of those things. If it were deep AI code in C or Intercal attached to a domain that had nothing to do with AI and uncommonly used C or Intercal in that field, maybe! And if something is useful enough enough, it can pretty much surive anything - or at least be easily replaced. That being said, there's reason to worry about dependencies - but I think those are seldom because of the factors in this article. Here's a post on some of those I wrote recently: http://opsrevolution.com/its-3am-do-you-know-where-your-software-dependencies-are/ http://opsrevolution.com/its-3am-do-you-know-where-your-soft... TLDR - The only TF=2 we should be worried about is probably Team Fortress related. If you must be worried, be worried when projects have small numbers of contributors and you don't understand the code - and don't think anybody else also using the project would pick it up. If you think there's 1000 people who understand it and can pick it up, it's definitely not TF=2 and this whole article is bad math.