What's pretentious about wanting software that works.
There is nothing with wanting that software, but it's another thing to apply those values to someone else who has other priorities.
It's folks who pretend they care about access to source code that are pretentious because they neither read nor change the source.
I wouldn't fall into this category, but it happens most modifications I do these days to opensource products is for personal interests that I rarely contribute back. Kind of similar to RMS' printer driver issue.
Open source been around for decades but we have not seen the hundreds or even dozens of variations of a given software that was promised by OSS evangelists.
Yeah, I am sure there are a lot of shit OSS evangelists out there.
Heck, I would like to see a Linux tree that is free of systemd. So far, most distros are adopting systemd.
I'm on the fence on the issue, but mostly because I haven't learned sufficiently enough about it to have a decent opinion.
He said, "I don't have special obligations to people I don't know." That implies he doesn't care for these strangers. Then why is he giving out free software to these people?
I could give an example of my own I guess. Such as the reason I published some random little things (like an XML parser I wrote in m68k assembler for a hobby project), if it's useful to someone, great. If not, sorry but it meets my needs currently and I don't have an interest in it outside of my scope. I might offer a little help here and there if my life isn't busy and I have the drive after doing all the other stuff I have to do at the end of the day, but it's not assured.
Because every other individual or organization that releases software, supports their code?
In my consultancy life, working with large multi-national companies, 'support' (despite paid for) was often (not always), next to non-existent if it wasn't a user/developer-error issue and the only thing they could do was 'waive' various fees. In my personal life, I have had problems with certain audio hardware and software, they just up-front told me that they don't support it and offered a refund. I've also fought with a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (Giff gaff), who would refuse to support me in practically any circumstance (despite having a very specific technical issue) and refer me to their community forums for support despite being willing to pay for support etc.
In summary, no, I don't agree with your assumption here.
The exceptions are lazy programmers
I'm not lazy, the average hours I worked last year (and I know this because of my time sheets) was 112 hours per week (and I only really posted or went on sites like Slashdot when I was travelling). The very few days I took for Holidays are included in that calculation too. I actually stopped contributing to some projects at that point (with some angry users, they were unwilling to accept that I wasn't willing to work further on the project unless I was getting a sufficient salary to quit my existing job to do so - fortunately, there were a lot of understanding users too).
The fun fact behind this though, I was working crazy hours particularly because we weren't getting the support (struggled to find even contractors of a reasonable calibre to help me too) and had deadlines to meet.
or shysters who you want to charge you $$$ for simple fixes (as is in this case).
Considering most of the industry expects you to pay in some form for support (most of which in my experience is insufficient when a 'real' problem is encountered). Then, going further into my consultancy experience, where I've had a one line change and they would charge you ridiculous money (we're talking over 1000USD easily for a one line change).
I suppose the end-user's grandmother is supposed to fix the code then if the original developer won't fix bugs.
My grandmother bought a new iPad when Apple refused to support her old one (wouldn't sync something with her iPhone - I forget what).
Now, maybe if the sources were opensource, maybe some community effort may have been available to provide an alternative. Maybe she was willing to get a bunch of her other friends that have iPads and sponsor some contractor to fix her issue. Maybe in her old age, she felt that she had enough time to sit down and learn computers.
As far as I can tell, there are a few more options where opensource is concerned. They might not be all great, it might not be worth her or your time. That's for the user to decide. Support isn't universal.
Programmers are supposed to spend 50%-70% of their time adding minor features or fixing bugs.
If it's worthwhile to them, sure. Otherwise they can buy or use another product or pay someone else to do it if it's more worth while. Opensource just means you have more options in this scenario where you can't get support. They could even write their own product from scratch if it was worthwhile to them.
If you don't have the time to do that, find someone who will maintain the code or don't release the code at all.
I don't see the reason not to release the sourcecode unless you were profiting from product licensing, it only gives people more options.
Those sections usually address previously unknown bugs in the software that cause the end-user harm/damage.
From my understanding, they go to the extent of explicitly saying that the program may not even work correctly and you have /no/ expectation unless stated otherwise, of the person to fix the issue. It is my understanding that this exists because of developers getting sued because they weren't providing support in one form or another.
It would be brain-dead stupid and negligent to release software to customers when you know severe showstopper bugs exist in your software and yet you refuse to fix it until some extortion money has been extracted from the hapless user.
The cool thing about opensource is that, you could fix it yourself and release it for everyone. No more evil extortion plot. You don't even have to pay the person that wrote it to fix it. That wouldn't work in closed source.