On: No one reads the terms of service. Lawmakers want ...

[Danieru]

This is also why releasing code without a license is dangerous. Without a license your code defaults to the UGC and thus you become liable for "fit for purpose". Instead even basic open source licenses must disclaim the default clauses if the UGC like warranty and fit for purpose.

[musicale → Danieru]

I'm not sure about software that is given away for free, but "fit for purpose" liability certainly sounds like a sensible idea for any software that is sold, whether or not it includes free or open source components.

This makes even more sense as software becomes a key component of more products.

[saagarjha → Danieru]

If you don’t license your code then other people don’t default to getting the rights to use it.

[labster → saagarjha]

WTFPL has an interesting niche that grants rights to use code for any purpose, but includes no disclaimers.

[Ekaros → Danieru]

At this point the whole thing feels perverse. Almost no software guarantees "fit for purpose". It really should be other way around at this point. The license would have to say it establishes warranty if it doesn't there is no such warranty or fit for purpose.