[middleload]

I'd argue that the same is true today. No big org is using pure OSS. They have big contracts with Redhat and the likes and they like to pretend that they're covered.

[nradov]

It's not just pretend. If the big org finds a defect and opens a support ticket, Red Hat will actually fix it.

[tremon]

Yet if the big org loses money due to said defect, the supplier will not reimburse that. No matter if it's Red Hat, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, or Google.

[bluGill]

You always pay for all software in time. Someone needs to install the software in your company. Someone needs to answer support calls. If you pay RedHat when your people can't figure it out they can turn to someone else - a specialist (You hope: Redhat has a good reputation but there is always risk it is just someone else who knows less than you and will take more of your time understanding the problem than to just figure it out yourself.)

My CEO could do my job. He would need an additional degree in programming, and even more time in a day. He hires me because telling my bosses bosses (skip several levels) boss to get something done will go down the chain into figuring it out how to go from we need to grow market share in the area I'm working to actual code that will grow that market share. This across thousands of employees - the CEO could learn to do any one but he can't do all of them.

[sonnyblarney]

"No big org is using pure OSS"

On the contrary every big org is using OSS.

OSS is in everything.

That there is 'nobody to sue' is besides the point, it's like suing the inventor of the fork because something happened with a fork.

If you bought something complicated from someone with a contract and you depend on it doing ABC and it doesn't, then there's a case of liability.

But tons of software is OSS and there's nobody to sue.

'Liability' in software is maybe important in some areas, but mostly it's not.