> Hobby projects that prove useful have a tendency of starting to be used in production code
Even if that is true, how is that the authors problem? The license clearly states that they're not responsible for damages. If you were developing such a serious project then you need the appropriate vetting process and/or support contracts for your dependencies.
I didn’t say it’s the author’s problem. It’s a problem with the code.
Why play all these semantic games? You're saying it's the author's problem. You want them to even edit their readme to include warnings for would be production/business users who don't want to pay for it.
GP is arguing about licences. Yes, formally there is no obligation, and I'm not saying the author has any such obligation.
In the present case, either the missing overflow check in the code is by mistake, and then it's warranted to point out the error, or, as I understood GGGP to be arguing, the author deliberately decided to neglect safety or correctness, and then in my opinion you can't reject the criticism as unwarranted if the project's presentation isn't explicit about that.
I'm not making anything the author's problem here. Rather, I'm defending my criticism of the code, and am giving arguments as to why it is generally good form to make it explicit if a project doesn't care about the code being safe and correct.
I understand your point and if I were the author I would want either a disclaimer or a fix. File an issue or make a pr. Filing an issue is quicker and more fruitful than dealing with folks here
It is useful to understand the limitations of such hobby programs to know what they are useful for.
[flagged]
Layer8 DID the thing though, skimmed through the code and thought about security issues.
[dead]