On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:27:47 -0800 Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > the full details > can not be publicly disclosed instantaneously due to legal constraint This I simply don't understand. If I am minding my own business and walking to the post office, and Joe Bloggs walks up to me and punches me in the nose, I think I'm perfectly within my rights to tell my friends and everyone else who wants to listen that Joe Bloggs punched me in the nose. On the other hand, if I want to date Joe Bloggs' sister I might tell people who ask me how I got a broken nose that I can't tell them. But that's not "legal reasons", that's simply my personal choice to keep quiet about it. Why should this be any different? Either something happened, or it did not. If something happened, then the facts will either be released, or not. I don't see how vague, unspecified "legal reasons" could stop anyone from discussing their involvement unless there is some contractual issue involved, in which case the person(s) involved in enforcing the contract are the ones who are in a position to provide the facts. "I realize that this contract says that I'm not supposed to talk about this, but in these circumstances perhaps we should make an exception." "I agree. Here is a written waiver of the relevant contact provisions." Problem solved. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
