Hi, Le 30 octobre 2025 00:32:58 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel <[email protected]> a écrit : >You talk like you understand legal matters and are refering to wiktionary. >Thilo is in Germany, lets refer to german law:
Pretty sure German law doesn't define the English term "doxxing". And again, maybe the conference organisation, not Kieran, violated German law, but: 1) That does not justify knowingly repeated slander against another member of the community (or really anyone). 2) The conference is probably outside German jurisdiction anyway. 3) In all likelihood, Thilo granted permission for the conference to publish the address in the fineprint of the exhibitor contractual terms. 4) If it was Thilo's *office* address, it's likely even public information from the trade register. >> Obviously not. If it is already public then by definition it cannot be >> doxxing. > >see above I don't see aything above. >> And again, the more important aspect here is that Kieran was *asking*, not >> publishing, what *business*, not person, sits at a given already published > >The litteral text from kieran was > >"Who does this address belong to?" >and "who" normally implies a person. "Who" implies that it was a **question**. If someone committed "doxxing" under either of the generally accepted definitions, that's whoever **answered** that it was Thilo. >All above said, if the CC refuses to act on this, obviously that proofs my >point >which was that "the CC is not acting on this". Again, you were a member of the CC and I was not at the time, so whatever. I doubt that the other members of the CC at the time will appreciate those comments though. The current CC has no authority over stuff that was handled by a previous CC. A contrario, the current CC already took actions publicly against Kieran in other matters earlier *this* year. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
