Re:On the Weaponisation of Open Source
by sneak on Saturday March 19, 2022 @05:38PM
(#30737800)
It was not advertised as a "working open source project". In fact, quite the opposite. From the license:
> 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.
Its fitness for any particular purpose was expressly disclaimed, in all caps.
I'm not sure what people think they did wrong here. You're allowed (and should be allowed) to publish malware, it is up to consumers to not install software they don't want to run.
What more warning could they have possibly posted beyond this one?
> 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.
Its fitness for any particular purpose was expressly disclaimed, in all caps.
I'm not sure what people think they did wrong here. You're allowed (and should be allowed) to publish malware, it is up to consumers to not install software they don't want to run.
What more warning could they have possibly posted beyond this one?