That text does not disclaim support, security bugfixes, and future development. On the contrary, all three of those things are probably either heavlily implied or outright stated to be available on the project web site.

You and I are reading "SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION." very differently.

At best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases.

> At best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases

Can you explain how you got to that interpretation from that phrasing?

> SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

And how is future development and / or support not covered under servicing of that clause?

Fixing defects is a different activity from support and future development, no?

Why is that distinction important? Especially in light of the first sentence of the paragraph that sentence is embedded in.

> THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.

It also doesn't disclaim the author from writing you a check out of the good will of their heart.

I don't understand what's so difficult to understand. It's like everyone has been captured by a machine that will conjure up the most mystifying reasoning to suit a predetermined conclusion that was never true to begin with.

> * It also doesn't disclaim the author from writing you a check out of the good will of their heart.*

Nobody expects that. But people do reasonably expect a project to recieve updates, security fixes, and new releases.

I'm not disagreeing with you, you're just wrong.

It's not reasonable to expect a project to receive updates, security fixes, and new releases for software projects the author put on the Internet explicitly with a license saying it's warrantied for no purpose.

I was going to present a fair rebuttal, but you’ve just convinced me that it’s unreasonable for you to expect any answer from me in this debate.

There's nothing to debate.

Your starting point is to selectively ignore parts of the authors explicitly chosen license.

It's sophistry.

I think it is too long.