Imagine you see a homeless beggar on the street asking you for money. You feel sorry for the guy and give him 20 dollars such that he can buy food. He buys crack for your money and ODs, for then to sue you for a million dollars for "having facilitated for his drug abuse". The purpose of the MIT license is to avoid such scenarios, nothing more, nothing less ...
Personally I create open source for altruistic reasons. Sure it might not be the reason why I can create open source, but it's definitely the reason why I want to create open source. If somebody downloads my code for free and use it, for then to sue me over some detail in it, I would become "moderately angry" (understatement of the year) - Therefor we use such license terms as the MIT license to avoid such problems ...
As to a "hippocratic oath" for software developers, particularly open source software, that is 100% redundant since people can check out the code and verify themselves that it's good (or bad) - Which is kind of a lot of the purpose with FOSS. If somebody creates "bad code" I simply won't use it ...
As I stated, I'm not asking for full-on 100% liability. I'm just looking for solutions to have more responsibility over what I deliver, to spare my users from "I'm gonna fuck your shit up knowingly and intentionally, just because I feel like it" (which can be trivially done by updating the minor version of a previously trusted source, have someone make a fresh install and/or update according to semver and watch the world crumble to dust). Basically an MIT License with the added promise that I won't screw users over with malicious intent, and if I do so then I should definitely face the adequate consequences.
As for an Oath, it's aimed to be more generic than just OSS or even Software Developers. Feels weird to only have Physicians solemnly swear that they'll follow a specific set of principles when they could damn well be applied to each and every scientific field.
Well, I guess your suggestion has become increasingly important lately, seeing some people having conspicuously sabotaged their own packages lately (non mentioned, none forgotten) - If you deal with a company though delivering open source, such as us I guess it becomes at the very least "less likely" due to the monetary needs required to actually run a company, creating slightly higher amounts of responsibility ... :/
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Imagine you see a homeless beggar on the street asking you for money. You feel sorry for the guy and give him 20 dollars such that he can buy food. He buys crack for your money and ODs, for then to sue you for a million dollars for "having facilitated for his drug abuse". The purpose of the MIT license is to avoid such scenarios, nothing more, nothing less ...
Personally I create open source for altruistic reasons. Sure it might not be the reason why I can create open source, but it's definitely the reason why I want to create open source. If somebody downloads my code for free and use it, for then to sue me over some detail in it, I would become "moderately angry" (understatement of the year) - Therefor we use such license terms as the MIT license to avoid such problems ...
As to a "hippocratic oath" for software developers, particularly open source software, that is 100% redundant since people can check out the code and verify themselves that it's good (or bad) - Which is kind of a lot of the purpose with FOSS. If somebody creates "bad code" I simply won't use it ...
As I stated, I'm not asking for full-on 100% liability. I'm just looking for solutions to have more responsibility over what I deliver, to spare my users from "I'm gonna fuck your shit up knowingly and intentionally, just because I feel like it" (which can be trivially done by updating the minor version of a previously trusted source, have someone make a fresh install and/or update according to semver and watch the world crumble to dust). Basically an MIT License with the added promise that I won't screw users over with malicious intent, and if I do so then I should definitely face the adequate consequences.
As for an Oath, it's aimed to be more generic than just OSS or even Software Developers. Feels weird to only have Physicians solemnly swear that they'll follow a specific set of principles when they could damn well be applied to each and every scientific field.
Well, I guess your suggestion has become increasingly important lately, seeing some people having conspicuously sabotaged their own packages lately (non mentioned, none forgotten) - If you deal with a company though delivering open source, such as us I guess it becomes at the very least "less likely" due to the monetary needs required to actually run a company, creating slightly higher amounts of responsibility ... :/