[bsza]

On the contrary, this is the sentiment that encourages us to make free software in the first place. This is the only reason FOSS exists, even. Who in the world would license something under the GPL if its terms didn't make it clear that the software comes with "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY"?

As long as it’s free, it doesn’t matter how bad it is, because at least you're giving others a chance to make it better, INCLUDING improving the code quality to enable less experienced developers, or even laypeople, to collaborate. No one should expect you to take that burden upon yourself. If all developers did everything right on the first try, we wouldn't need open source.

[zen21]

It’s not clear why you’re taking about warranties.

It’s strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.

It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.

On the contrary, that would make open source far more valuable because it would be easier for people to add to or modify, and a better example for newcomers.

The author is not attacking the existence of open source. He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.

[Supermancho]

> It’s not clear why you’re taking about warranties.

Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.

> It's strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...

> It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.

Moving the goalpost to another hand-wavy quality of "great code", is not meaningful. The fact you think this is some sort of concrete goal (as opposed to a quality about simple utility), is telling.

> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.

That's circumstantial, like most things in life.

You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article. Good luck with whatever.

[zen21]

> Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.

That clause means that the author of the code isn’t legally liable for defects.

How is this relevant at all to the article? Nobody is talking about legal action.

>> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.

> That's circumstantial, like most things in life.

Obviously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, nor that we shouldn’t discuss it.

> You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article.

Generally when someone complains about an argument being in bad faith it means they are personally invested in defending something they think is under attack. It’s not clear to me what you think you are defending.