Yeah which is bullshit. He may not have been paid to make Bash but you can definitely make the argument that there is an ethical responsibility not to foist shit software on the world.
I mean you can't totally avoid Bash today, and that has a cost to society (because it's so shit) which he at least has some responsibility for.
Of course if he doesn't want to work on it and fix things that is fine. But I don't think he is responsibility-free.
Look at it another way - if I build a dangerous bridge over a river, and someone dies crossing it can I say "well you were free to walk around the river"? Of course I can, but that ignores the fact that I made the bridge available to other people, expecting them to use it and importantly it put other people off making a safe bridge. I am in some way responsible even though I only provided something for free that nobody had to use.
It's precisely this kind of entitled rhetoric that pushes people away from contributing at all. Please try to consider that on the other end of a conversation there is a human being, who doesn't owe you anything and does what he does (in this case) out of pure charity.
Builders of bridge for general public use have a legal obligation for safety. That's not comparable.
Moreoever, I have made bridges across streams, using stones and logs, which were not safe. And left them there as-is, because there isn't an obligation that these sorts of throw-it-together hiking bridges actually be safe for others. The risk is entirely on the crosser. If you try to cross it, slip, knock your head on a rock, and drown, there is no blame on me. (Plus, it might have been safe when I made it, but the water conditions changed, or if overnight it iced over, etc.)
Look at it another way. If I post a poem on my web site, for people to read for free, and you think it's crap, I don't have an obligation to edit the poem to your liking or even read your criticism.
Do I have an ethical obligation to not post shitty poetry on the world? No! I don't even have the obligation to not be snide to criticism I don't like.
And I believe you are saying that it's unethical for all of those college students in introductory CS classes to host their software - almost all of which are 'shit software' - on a public system like github.
> When somebody leaves or disengages from the project, we ask that they do so in a way that minimises disruption to the project. They should tell people they are leaving and take the proper steps to ensure that others can pick up where they left off.
I don't think a maintainer owes anybody free labour, but I do think a good maintainer will hand over the keys to someone else when the needs of the community require it.
As soon as software engineering is a profession that requires professional certification, and as soon as Bash is something that's commissioned by some kind of entity that requires it to adhere to certain safety/quality standards, your bridge example will apply here. Until then, it is 100% irrelevant.
I mean you can't totally avoid Bash today, and that has a cost to society (because it's so shit) which he at least has some responsibility for.
Of course if he doesn't want to work on it and fix things that is fine. But I don't think he is responsibility-free.
Look at it another way - if I build a dangerous bridge over a river, and someone dies crossing it can I say "well you were free to walk around the river"? Of course I can, but that ignores the fact that I made the bridge available to other people, expecting them to use it and importantly it put other people off making a safe bridge. I am in some way responsible even though I only provided something for free that nobody had to use.