| 1 |
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 08:32 pm, Phill MV wrote: |
| 2 |
> That just leaves me with one question: is it really legally binding? Is it |
| 3 |
> actually forseeable that someone might give me a hard time for say posting |
| 4 |
> such an email verbatim on a website? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Legally binding, maybe But enforcable, hardly. Had the individual mailed you |
| 7 |
directly and you published it to the web, then you would have been violating |
| 8 |
the original intent of the sender, to establish a protected conversation |
| 9 |
between the two of you (or, from the company's perspective, to share |
| 10 |
privileged information with you, which you then made public). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
However, as the OP posted his message to the mailing list which is of course |
| 13 |
archived, republished as digests, and generally available from the website. |
| 14 |
So there was no intent on his/their part to discretely share information with |
| 15 |
one or a few individuals. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Look at the guy that just got busted for releasing early information on some |
| 18 |
apple product (the ipod mini, I think?) There's an example of what can |
| 19 |
happen if you share info that is given to you by a corporate entity and you |
| 20 |
go spreading it around. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But once the individual/company make it public (ala posting a message like |
| 23 |
that to the list), it no longer carries privilege with it, unless of course |
| 24 |
it contained information that you used in some way to develop a competing |
| 25 |
product/service, at which point you've opened a different can of worms... |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives