It's genuinely mind-blowing to me that software can do something obviously bad, someone can point it out, and then someone will link to the license file to say they have the right to do it.

That's such an obvious category mistake that I'm not sure how to respond. It almost feels like a bad-faith interpretation of Wichary's original point.

▲

timschmidt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Equally mindblowing that folks feel someone hacking on open source software has an obligation to do anything the way they feel it needs to be done when the whole point is that anyone gets to do more or less what they want with the code.

You can't have both.

	▲	retsibsi an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They get to do more or less what they want with the software, and others get to say more or less what they want about that. What's wrong with deciding they've crossed a line, being bothered by that, and warning others? Nobody's trying to get the law involved, or maliciously retaliate against them, or anything like that.
	▲	InsideOutSanta an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I published my comment for free, and yet you are criticizing it.
	▲	ryandrake 44 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think you are objecting to OP’s “duty of care” wording which could be interpreted as suggesting a legal obligation. Nobody in this thread is really arguing that open source developers have a legal obligation to do this and to not do that. We are just saying they should do this and should not do that.
	▲	Chris2048 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> has an obligation to do anything the way they feel it needs to be done > anyone gets to do more or less what they want with the code so if the software had explicitly installed a root kit, you'd say the same? If you give out free soup, you get to poison it too?
	▲	nikanj an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"My software ran rm -rf / but it's GPL so sucks to be you"