Same applies to any kind of business.
Why should FOSS be any different?
Maybe this is the culmination of the bazaar idea after all, including quickly stuffing the products back into a bag and running away from the law enforcement official between the crowd, by not having either a license or the expected quality.
Holly bushes grow berries that you shouldn't eat.
Should government destroy all holly bushes? No. All berries? Certainly not.
Speech is a natural right and software is speech, so it can't be meaningfully viewed any other way, unless you're mindlessly parroting representative government deliberations.
It's one of the smartest laws I've seen in this area. Want to run a small coffee shack with some cakes, cookies etc? No need for a certified kitchen, "fully trained" cook, etc. The only thing you have to do is take a course that helps differentiate between refrigeration-required and no-refrigeration required food.
Interesting to think how this model would apply in the software context...
And those do apply to small stands and full kitchens. But if you want to claim they are unreasonable, then you should argue by existing ones rather then made up ones.
I did not make anything up. The New Mexico law I mentioned went into effect only a few years ago. Before that, it would be illegal to, for example, bake a cake in your home kitchen and offer it for sale. This is no longer the case.
Imagine you were making cookies for your friends, and Nabisco happened to get one of the cookies somehow. Should you be responsible if they decide to use the ability, conferred from having one cookie, to create an infinite number of copies of that cookie (without checking it for defects or even really investigating it much) and start selling them across the country? I’d say probably not. But our legal framework doesn’t cover it, because physical objects don’t work like that, unlike software.
We could also look at software as more like a recipe. If Nabisco decided to copy my cookie recipe, they’d unambiguous be responsible for checking it and making sure it wasn’t actually poisonous. We also have cook books, I guess if you put a poisonous recipe in a cookbook you’d have some responsibility. But this is all manageable because cooking recipes are pretty short and easy enough to verify, and the foot-guns of the hobbyist cooking field are mostly well known.
A closer recipe analogy is probably — Nabisco probably gets their bulk supplies from a network of suppliers, who have to manage things like contamination levels and fitness for a given purpose. But now we’re hitting the point where the analogy is at least as complicated as the software supply network; I’m sure there are lots of shared responsibilities and regulations in that network, and it is all professionalized and for-profit.
Because it's not a business. Health regulations for restaurants also don't apply to your kitchen at home, even if you are inviting friends for dinner.
The "do what you want and we will punish you hard if luck strikes badly" is less predictable. It has unfair results. It leads to both excessive risk avoidance (because if you are unlucky punishment is disproportionate) and risk taking customer is unable to proactively avoid.
If you make business with said FOSS you need to provide security just like how a food truck making food from open recipes has to make sure to not poison people either.