●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byCorporate T00l ( 244210 ) writes:
It's not really surprising that going to court and going public are really last resort sort of things. Court is expensive, and most people considering them to be a "roll of the dice". Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.
Going public, even after going to court, also sours the atmosphere, creating emotional contention that makes an actual agreement less likely. Look at out-of-court settlements with undisclosed terms and no party admitting fau
byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes:
Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.
It should be so far from not surprising I'm surprised that it had to be said.
Once you throw down the legal gauntlet, anyone you are dealing with now imagines, in bright red 30' letters, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
Yes, because they were living in the corporate dreamland of lawless cooperation until these open-source thugs just started asserting ownership of code.
Sometimes things can be honest mistakes and warning are nice, but other things are obvious and treating them like a mistake just gives the infringing person a victim role to play and by forgiving everything they did doesn't change their future behavior in the slightest.
Imagine shoplifting. You leave a store and they catch up with you and say "Hi, you MIGHT have something of ours, if you return to the store and sort this out we'll drop this." This is appropriate if it looks accidental and they want you to come back in the future, but if they said this to a thief the thief would give this item back and steal another the next day. Only by pursuing the thief vigorously could they prevent more thefts.
In most cases it's pretty hard to call using someone's library without considering licensing an 'honest' mistake, especially in business. These people need to be smacked with the "We're going to court with this unless you call up and grovel by 9am" or they're just going to screw with you.
Honest people don't rip things out of packages in the store and hide them down their leg - honest businesses don't obfuscate which libraries they're using. People who do these things need to be treated like liars until they show otherwise.
Parent
twitter
facebook
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...