Is there any reason that you think being aware of the pattern is enough to solve it, or feel no consequences from it? I think people are aware of the pattern (it's not hard to notice) but that doesn't solve the issues it creates.
There may be another thing at play too. Many projects are presented as being useful: “I built this great thing, you should use it!” Open Source or not, this gets to be a promise people will be held accountable for.
If instead a project is described as “I built this thing for me. Here’s the source. Please don't trust me, or my code, with anything valuable” expectations can be better aligned perhaps.
There can of course be middle grounds. “I wrote this useful code. If you need me to be your project manager for it, here’s how you can pay for that privilege”
> If instead a project is described as “I built this thing for me. Here’s the source. Please don't trust me, or my code, with anything valuable” expectations can be better aligned perhaps.
Every open source project states this explicitly. In the license. Usually in all caps. Wanna see?
MIT license has:
---
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.
---
See? "No warranty of any kind." I.e. "don't trust this with anything valuable". How can this be more explicit?
GPL:
---
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
---
See? "The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the program is with you". How can this be more explicit?
Nowhere does it state that the author is obliged to provide support, reply to issue reports, accept merge requests, or is even nice to anybody. It's great if they are, and I appreciate such projects as well, but nobody is entitled to that. So please don't assume it or berate people if you encounter the opposite. This builds false expectations in others who don't know any better. We need to help each other out to build proper understanding within the community.
That’s legalese boilerplate. It might be useful for actually legal disputes, but I don’t think it has much use for public relations. It could be prudent to have similar sentiments included in more familiar ways in the regular project description.
But perhaps more importantly, if you really feel that your software “has no implied fitness for a particular purpose”. Don't do keynotes and conference talks claiming the opposite.
