[aidenn0]

> You completely missed the point. At the end of the day, the legal obligations are the only ones, and both the Apache and MIT licenses very clearly state that the creator of the software has no obligations to any user.

There's a word for people who only fulfill their legal obligations: Assholes.

[bpt3]

> There's a word for people who only fulfill their legal obligations: Assholes.

There's also a word for people who expect others to meet their expectations without contributing anything on their end: Assholes.

If you explicitly state up front what you're willing to do to support a project, and I come along demand you go above and beyond your stated limitations, who is being unreasonable here?

[aidenn0]

Oh yes, the assholes in this particular situation are without a doubt the people attacking Nikolay over this.

However, I read your earlier comment as meaning roughly "anyone who releases any software under an MIT/X11 license has zero obligations to anything regarding that software period" which is something I do disagree with.

[bpt3]

My point is that consumers of software released under licenses which don't obligate the creator to do anything shouldn't expect more from the creator than that.

If the creator does act as a "good steward", that's great, but you shouldn't plan on that being the case or be surprised when it isn't.

[aidenn0]

I think we are in agreement, though I wouldn't use the word "expect" in that way.

[bpt3]

How would you use it in this context?

[ori_b]

> There's a word for people who only fulfill their legal obligations: Assholes.

There's also a word for people who stake their professional reputation on the work of random assholes on the internet.