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.