bigstrat2003 2 hours ago

Yes, everyone is aware of that. The parent poster was bringing up the example of food to demonstrate that our society does not agree that giving something away for free doesn't mean you have no obligation as to potential adverse effects of the thing.

▲

Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Analogies like this don’t work when comparing against heavily regulated industry.

Neovim being free software is a lot different than United Airlines giving me a free flight or my doctor giving me a free consultation.

It’s very true that you can go to civil court and make a claim that a business or individual harmed you. If you do that with Neovim the judge is going to pretty quickly read bullet point #7 of the Apache 2.0 license, you’re going to struggle to prove any kind of mal-intent, you’re going to tell the judge that you paid $0 for the software, and you’ll be pretty quickly sent along your way with no damages awarded.

▲

TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Only in the sense there's no explicit legal responsibility.

Do you really believe developers have exactly zero moral responsibility to their users? None at all?

Really?

Would you still believe that if you found the developers of ssh deliberately included a backdoor for hackers, or neovim was uploading everyone's code to the NSA?

	▲	Grombobulous an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I never said developers have no responsibility. Let’s not escalate. Now we are talking about actively malicious software versus a bug or design flaw. This issue with Neovim sounds like less than ideal design, or a bug, or both, not some kind of intentional affront to users.

▲

Ekaros an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That is why software should have very large liability for anything software they release do? Say your software due to bug destroys some document. Surely you should pay damages caused by such bug even if quite high?