3 ms·

A reasonable interpretation would be that they had a previous process that eliminated delivery latency and required no manual manpower for responding, so changi

by bulder 2mo ago

A reasonable interpretation would be that they had a previous process that eliminated delivery latency and required no manual manpower for responding, so changing it has been done to induce artificial friction, against the intent of the license. Not that the intent of a license can be enforced.

literalAardvark 2mo ago
Compliance with the intent of the law is one of the things courts get to decide on. Someone just needs to be crazy enough to sue (and rich/lucky enough to win)
- goda90 2mo ago
  Just need a lawyer looking for an interesting class action, to be honest. All gOS users can be in the class.
  - Ohentis 1mo ago
    I don't think gOS users are actually the damaged party. I imagine it would be non-google copyright holders of gOS code.
    - goda90 1mo ago
      Are they not damaged by delayed updates including security patches?
westurner 2mo ago
Which licenses specify which time limit for disclosure of open source code (which is contributed to by many stakeholders)?
- bulder 2mo ago
  That's why I said intent rather than letter. That said if we allow for arbitrary lengths of time, one could argue that sending back a reply indicating that the source will be delivered in 50-75 years is equally compliant.
  - westurner 2mo ago
    But such would not be a reasonable amount of time or in the spirit of the agreed-upon policy.
account42 1mo ago
> Not that the intent of a license can be enforced. Why can't it? A license is not just a piece of text but a meeting of minds.