4 ms·

> where companies just stall and stall and stall. That's a legal tactic regardless of initial intent or guilt. If you thinking waiting someone out is cheaper

> where companies just stall and stall and stall. That's a legal tactic regardless of initial intent or guilt. If you thinking waiting someone out is cheaper than losing or settling, then you stall. It puts a financial burden on them. I'm not saying it's right, and it's also not an indicator of guilt, malice, or forethought.

pabs3 4y ago
Sure, but this is after they have shown to be violating.
- cptskippy 4y ago
  And? Being shown evidence you committed a crime or breached an agreement doesn't prove malice or forethought. Additionally people seem to think of legal contracts and licenses as being set in stone or non negotiable. In the legal world they are simple the starting point for any negotiation.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Copyleft licenses, at least when Conservancy enforces them, are definitely non-negotiable: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm... "Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL compliance. Copyleft's overarching policy goal is to make respect of users' freedoms the norm. The GNU GPL's text is designed towards this end. Copyleft enforcement done in this spirit focuses on stopping incorrect distribution, encouraging corrected distribution, and addressing damage done to the community and users by the past violation. Addressing past damage often includes steps to notify those who have already received the software how they can also obtain its source code, and to explain the scope of their related rights. No other ancillary goals should supersede full compliance with the GPL and respect for users' freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute the software."
    - cptskippy 4y ago
      If anything, that encourages the stalling behavior since losing means full compliance without negotiation. Again, I'm not supporting or encouraging the behavior. This is just the reality of the legal system.

pabs3 4y ago

Sure, but this is after they have shown to be violating.

cptskippy 4y ago
And? Being shown evidence you committed a crime or breached an agreement doesn't prove malice or forethought. Additionally people seem to think of legal contracts and licenses as being set in stone or non negotiable. In the legal world they are simple the starting point for any negotiation.
- pabs3 4y ago
  Copyleft licenses, at least when Conservancy enforces them, are definitely non-negotiable: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm... "Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL compliance. Copyleft's overarching policy goal is to make respect of users' freedoms the norm. The GNU GPL's text is designed towards this end. Copyleft enforcement done in this spirit focuses on stopping incorrect distribution, encouraging corrected distribution, and addressing damage done to the community and users by the past violation. Addressing past damage often includes steps to notify those who have already received the software how they can also obtain its source code, and to explain the scope of their related rights. No other ancillary goals should supersede full compliance with the GPL and respect for users' freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute the software."
  - cptskippy 4y ago
    If anything, that encourages the stalling behavior since losing means full compliance without negotiation. Again, I'm not supporting or encouraging the behavior. This is just the reality of the legal system.