[lukeify]

An open-source project receiving open-source contributions from (often anonymous) volunteers is not even close to analogous to a storefront selling products with a consumer guarantee they are backing on the basis of their supply chain.

[sarchertech]

Do you think that Goodwill should be able to offload all liability for everything they sell at their thrift shops to their often anonymous donors?

Linus makes $1.5 million per year from the Linux foundation. And the foundation itself pulls in $300 million a year in revenue.

They are directly benefiting from contributors and if they cause harm through their actions there’s a good chance they’ll be held liable.

[lukeify]

> Do you think that Goodwill should be able to offload all liability for everything they sell at their thrift shops to their often anonymous donors?

I don't even think this is an appropriate analogy worth answering. Goodwill are selling products to consumers in a direct exchange of money-for-goods.

No one is buying Linux.

[sarchertech]

Ok so if goodwill gives products away they should be able to absolve themselves of all liability related to those products?

And any company selling a device or software the includes the Linux code should be liable then.

And they are according to the law btw. Along with anyone distributing the software which includes the owner of the Linux repositories.