But then again the law is in service. It comes second.
That article makes two points:
1) no license hinders broad use of their code because corporations won’t use it
2) liability for average quality, fitness for purpose, indemnity
I’d ask you, as a specialist, whether these are really show stoppers. Corporations’ conservatism might be considered to be their problem by the coder. And is there any history of open source developers losing in court over the article II liability?
My gut instinct is that only the first issue matters.
An open source developer will limit their success in the short term and long term without a license. That meets the the YAGNI test. If there are immediate bad effects of not having a license, get a license.
But the article II liability seems like a very long shot.