On 08-Aug-07, at 5:29 PM, jtd wrote:
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?
yes - the mention of license should be on deadtrees/cd in the box. If
not there you have reasonable cause. Link on website is not enough.
As for dlink, the judgement was about 6 months back, so prior to that
dlink wont have it in the box, but they have been forgiven. All new
dlink products i have seen have the license in/on the box. Skype had
a link to the source of the handset they were selling on their
website, but the court held that that was not enough to comply with
the gpl. The beauty of the RTI Act is that any indian citizen can
invoke it. Just download the form from the internet, fill it in and
post to the appropriate officer. The appropriate officer is also
described on the website.
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
