[bpt3]

I'm willing to bet the people who published that have no idea what they just said, and probably don't understand what the MIT license contains.

[byroot]

They are talking about the rubygems.org package hosting service...

[bpt3]

Right, take a look at Section 8 of the Terms of Service (https://rubygems.org/policies/terms-of-service):

THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED STRICTLY ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS, AND PROVIDER MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE SERVICE IS COMPLETE, SUITABLE FOR YOUR PURPOSE, RELIABLE, USEFUL, OR ACCURATE.

What warranty are they providing exactly?

[onionisafruit]

It comes with a 100,000 mile drive train warranty.

[collingreen]

Yeah we've been meaning to talk to you about that warranty actually

[skywhopper]

What warranty does it come with?

[byroot]

https://rubygems.org/policies

[12_throw_away]

Yep right there in the TOS:

a. THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED STRICTLY ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS, AND PROVIDER MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE SERVICE IS COMPLETE, SUITABLE FOR YOUR PURPOSE, RELIABLE, USEFUL, OR ACCURATE.

[byroot]

That’s not the only thing though. E.g. the collect PII, so I assume there are regulations to abide by etc.

[bpt3]

They're storing PII in the github repo they kicked the core maintainers out of?

Just stop trying to make excuses for these people. They screwed up, and based on this press release, don't seem to have any interest in actually correcting those mistakes.