On 2/26/16 6:04 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 02:52 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
I'm not aware of any, either, that is specific to github. But given
how digital
records in general (such as email, social media posts, etc.) are
routinely
accepted as evidence, I'd be very surprised if github wasn't.
Be careful about make assumptions of admissibility as evidence. I have
been expert witness in three cases regarding email logs and it is not
always so simple to have them treated as a matter of record. Of course
the USA is not the UK, rules and history are different in every
jurisdiction – and the USA has more than one!
I think it's much stronger when the email/logs are maintained by a
disinterested third party.
For example, I'd say emails that were maintained on a private server by
one of the parties in the case would be less reliable than logs stored
on yahoo's servers that neither party has access to.
There would also be no shortage of witnesses "Yes, I remember the day
Walter added feature x, and github's logs are correct".
I think Walter is on solid ground there.
-Steve
