--===============1866914060888145056==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000faa6305e9d6d8d1"

--0000000000000faa6305e9d6d8d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022, Clemens Lang <cllang@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Michael J Gruber <mjg@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Understanding is helped greatly by communication, though. Legal answers
>> such as "We can not" do not further this understanding, and "We can not
>> and we can not tell you why" is not much better, but these are the typic=
al
>> answer we get, not even with a "sorry, but we can't". Obviously, these
>> legal questions are difficult to explain, but it can't be true that each
>> such case is under a "gag order=E2=80=9D.
>>
>
> A lawyer at a previous employer told me that explanations of such decisio=
ns
> can be used against you in court. Presumably, this also applies here.


That's sounds overlay paranoid. How can an explanation on why you are *not*
doing something be used against you in court? I can get why "we don't think
that patent XYZ applies so this is fine to ship" is problematic, but the
other way around just doesn't make sense.

--0000000000000faa6305e9d6d8d1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022, Clemens Lang &lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:cllang@redhat.com">cllang@redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Michael J Gruber &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mjg@fedoraproject.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">mjg@fedoraproject.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Understanding is helped greatly by communication, though. Legal answers<br>
such as &quot;We can not&quot; do not further this understanding, and &quot=
;We can not<br>
and we can not tell you why&quot; is not much better, but these are the typ=
ical<br>
answer we get, not even with a &quot;sorry, but we can&#39;t&quot;. Obvious=
ly, these<br>
legal questions are difficult to explain, but it can&#39;t be true that eac=
h<br>
such case is under a &quot;gag order=E2=80=9D.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A lawyer at a previous employer told me that explanations of such decisions=
<br>
can be used against you in court. Presumably, this also applies here.</bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s sounds overlay paranoid. How can an e=
xplanation on why you are *not* doing something be used against you in cour=
t? I can get why &quot;we don&#39;t think that patent XYZ applies so this i=
s fine to ship&quot; is problematic, but the other way around just doesn&#3=
9;t make sense.=C2=A0</div>

--0000000000000faa6305e9d6d8d1--

--===============1866914060888145056==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline
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--===============1866914060888145056==--