On Tuesday 11 February 2003 01:48 pm, Buchan Milne wrote: > Ben Reser wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:06:13PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: > >>It may also be that they are not totally able to be totally open and > >>forthright. I would request that you consider carefully before damaging > >>your relationship with the people here in favour of attempting to force > >>Mandrakesoft to release information they need not disclose to the public. > > > > Mandrakesoft as a publicly traded company owes it's shareholders the > > truth. As an open source company it owes it's contributors the truth, > > even if it isn't required to give it. > > Surely it's up to the shareholders to decide what information needs to > be *publicly* (by which I mean accessible to people who are not > shareholders) accessible. no,,, that is up to the lawyers at this stage, I believe, at least it sure would be if it was in Fla. and I am sure there are things we would love to know, but to make "public" at this stage could weel leave the person making it public liable for any (imagined) damage it might have caused.
> Publishing such information could artificially > deflate stock prices, which is not in the shareholders interest. I believe the stock price is frozen, and it is not the shareholders whom have first say in this. it is the judge and prevailing laws. > >>That works both ways. Please make absolutely clear (on your site) that > >>you don't represent other non-Mandrakesoft contributors (which many > >>people, possibly including the Debain folk who posted here, may have > >>assumed) unless you do, and list those who feel you represent them. I like that Idea.
