Comment by zoogeny
4 months ago
Why only two options? It seems limiting the options of engagement only serves to create a false dichotomy for the purposes of supporting your argument.
If the only two options are to become obligated to the public or not to engage at all, what a sad world this would be. Thankfully, there are many, many alternate options in the reality we share, even if not in your imagined reality.
I only mentioned two options to simplify. I agree that there are many levels, as I have written about previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19538256>
I could write a lot about this but you may be too dug in to hear it. The obvious rebuttals are "caveat emptor", don't judge a book by its cover, don't buy a product just because the box looks professional, etc.
But you are actually arguing for something different. You are insisting on an implication where the rest of us don't see one. If a project has nice documentation, an up-to-date license, etc. you believe that there is ethical/moral implication that the maintainer will fulfil some responsibility.
This isn't just about misrepresentation (which is almost a side-effect), it is about a proposed belief in duty, almost like a chivalry that goes beyond gentleman-ness.
I tend to think of Postel's law in those circumstances, liberal in what I accept and conservative in what I do. I've heard it said that the happiest cultures of the world have low expectations.