[z3n]

I’m curious, how much does using open source licenses free you from legal responsibilities to support your code?

[ShadowAce]

I don't believe that code requires the same level of support as material goods.

The licenses for code usually allow rights to users that aren't normally allowed by copyright. Each license (including MS' licenses) grants different rights.

[untrained skeptic]

If you sell or license something to someone, you have an obligation to provide what you sold or licensed, or to return their money.

In most cases, the licensing agreement promises very little to the purchaser, and software is supported not out of a legal obligation, but out of a desire for repeat business or to maintain a good reputation.

Open source licenses promise basically nothing. They only place restrictions on the user of the code. Accepting those restrictions is the price you pay for using the code.

However in general you only have an obligation to support your code if you explicitly or at least implicitly promise such support. Most companies will explicitly deny any obligation to support their code because our courts have a habit of upholding the unreasonable expectations of idiots as enforceable obligations.

[antiRepublicrat]

I’m curious, how much does using open source licenses free you from legal responsibilities to support your code?

Read any proprietary or open source software license, they disclaim even the responsibility for the software doing what they say it does. There is zero claimed responsibility for support in either case unless the author decides to provide it.

[N3WBI3]

Not at all, unless you tell someone you will support their system there is no legal requirement to do so..

RedHat sells support so they must support even though its GPL