I think i would strongly disagree with this view - this is similar to arguing that people should just be able to release plans for nuclear weapons (or take your pick of less extreme examples) without adding responsibility to themselves, etc.
There's no obvious reason they should be able to, or that it is a net benefit to society. It's one of those things that people often think "sounds good", but isn't that great in practice, ever.
In fact, most of the problem that exists today in OSS security, support, etc is precisely because of people opening up code without trying to add any responsibility to themselves. At the same time, OSS has produced 100 of everything, so it's really hard to believe arguments that "if we didn't let this happen, things would not progress" and the like. I don't believe we would have been worse in terms of progress, etc, if we instead had 10 of everything, with the people more willing to take responsibility.
More practically, society has always believed in balance in every similar sort of thing, so it's not obvious to me why the extreme of "everyone can release anything without any responsibility" is ideal for anyone.
If you wrote "for underfunded projects" I would agree with you. It's a pretty universal fact of life regardless of the nature of the source.
> I think it’s a problem worth solving.
Definitely, I don't think anyone is against a solution to this problem. The question is what we can expect before the envisioned solution is finally created by someone and provided to us.
Similar things happen for research papers or generally scientific content though. You won’t be successful in suing an author of a study for incorrect content either.
It really seems that, for open source projects, the author is expected to be responsible for everything.
I think it would be a great benefit to all of us if people who wanted to open up code but didn’t want to add responsibility to their own world felt welcome to do so. I think it’s a problem worth solving.