774

submitted 2 months ago by tfm@piefed.europe.pub to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

That's the thing though if it's open source and 99.9% don't check that 0.1% checking it will be enough.

[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 2 points 2 months ago

The trouble with smaller open source software is that there's no 0.1% checking it. And from time to time a small projects becomes widely used and everyone assumes someone already checked it; it's a widely used open source software, after all.

[-] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

I have the same skeptical mindset as you here, but like Wikipedia still seems fine.

[-] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I think most early users do check further than open source licenses. It's possible they'll add things later, but if they add after it has enough users we have significant number of users to have some people check. And if the user base is small then they're probably more involved, or are reading/modifying code for their use cases.

Of course it's not foolproof, but it has worked for a long time because of things like that

[-] obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

Thank God for Tylenol.

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

By definition in order to have . 1% then the sample size must be greater than 1,000. The vast majority of open source projects will not get to this level.