Ironically, much of the rest of this thread is people saying they refuse to use or don't like semver _because_ they want to be introducing backwards-breaking changes without incrementing the major version number.

So, while there may be some projects that introduce backwards-breaking changes and increment major versions willy-nilly, I think actual observed developer behavior does not justify Russ Cox's supposition that semver does not serve as a disincentive to introduce breaking changes generally. People are complaining about semver _because_ they find it a disincentive, and don't want it there telling them they can't release backwards breaks without a major version bump they don't want to do :) Of course, you can lead a horse to water...

Perhaps the semver docs should make it clear that frequent backwards-breaking releases _still are likely_ to create developer pain even if you increment the major version release number, I dunno.