DLF Response to Generative AI and D: An Open Letter

[monkyyy]

On Monday, 20 July 2026 at 05:01:01 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 July 2026 at 10:03:42 UTC, Mindy (0xEAB) wrote:
>> On Saturday, 18 July 2026 at 01:48:19 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>> On Friday, 17 July 2026 at 19:32:16 UTC, Indraj Gandham wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, history shows this is often not the case.
>>>
>>> What history?
>>
>> • <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes>
>> • 
>> <https://techrights.org/n/2025/05/12/Microsoft_Has_a_Long_and_Proven_History_of_Funding_Meritless_La.shtml>
>
> SCO? The thing that died well over a decade ago and built so 
> much case law in the US that the tactic is now effectively 
> useless because the SCO losses are article #1 for the defense?
>
> I was hoping for something I hadn't already thoroughly read.
>
> Microsoft has since admitted that the whole thing was a 
> financial and legal disaster for them.
>
> Ironically, SCO is a cautionary tale about why it's not always 
> a good idea to prodigiously throw around copyright lawsuits. It 
> can end up back-firing in pretty spectacular ways. Something 
> that the anti-LLM camp should consider at length before diving 
> in.

A 10 year lawsuit is a negative sum game, it doesnt matter who 
wins its still stupid it existed.

Youd need an anti-safetyism argument for you to bridge the 
is/ought divide for how you discard caring the risk of a 10 year 
lawsuit, id look forward to all`y`lls making one.