While it's true that courts have held that open source licenses are enforceable (or at least not held to the contrary), I presume this is because of the specific way that each license is crafted.
Since the license wants to be enforceable, it goes out of its way to create a contract. Are you saying that the simple statement "Use this as you see fit" would also be held to be a contract, even in the absence of consideration? If so, why all the convolutions and verbiage in the current licenses?
And getting back to disclaimer of warranties, what about the absence of any stated license? Do you feel that a disclaimer of warranty is no more or less necessary with a license than without?
Since the license wants to be enforceable, it goes out of its way to create a contract. Are you saying that the simple statement "Use this as you see fit" would also be held to be a contract, even in the absence of consideration? If so, why all the convolutions and verbiage in the current licenses?
And getting back to disclaimer of warranties, what about the absence of any stated license? Do you feel that a disclaimer of warranty is no more or less necessary with a license than without?