On Wednesday 08 August 2007 17:08, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On 08-Aug-07, at 4:54 PM, jtd wrote: > >>> However its not D-Link am talking of. > >> > >> why the secrecy - MTNL and starcom? > > > > So that you dont get sued for slander or whatever a false > > accusation is called in legalese. > > it is called defamation - and in case you are interested, even a > true accusation can be defamatory. And a false accusation may not > be defamatory. It is the motivation for the accusation that is > important. In this case, the accusation - true or false - is made > in public interest after a reasonable attempt at verification, so > it is not defamatory.
Ok. That is very interesting. So we can disclose names if we have made "reasonable" attempts to verify the facts. in the case of gpl violations - we have verified that the binaries are gpl - will the abscence of an offer for source code on the website (or written offer like dlink) be construed as sufficient verification? -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
