SO has to make a decision of how much can they prove in court. If they can prove it, what kind of damages might they be awarded, and if any rewards would cover the the expense of bringing the case forward. If any of those questions are a "no", then you have to try to save face some how. This is that face saving move. So to me, it sounds like they decided "no" was an answer somewhere in the decision tree.
When you steal, steal big. You go to jail for stealing someone's things, but if you steal everyone's things, then it's just too much for people to handle and they'd rather the whole thing just goes away really. (maybe I've read too much Douglas Adams)
> When you steal, steal big. You go to jail for stealing someone's things, but if you steal everyone's things, then it's just too much for people to handle and they'd rather the whole thing just goes away really. (maybe I've read too much Douglas Adams)
You're correct that this is how it works. It's just really sad, and shouldn't be.
People like Aaron Swartz got bullied into suicide, yet OpenAI is getting white glove treatment.
When you steal, steal big. You go to jail for stealing someone's things, but if you steal everyone's things, then it's just too much for people to handle and they'd rather the whole thing just goes away really. (maybe I've read too much Douglas Adams)