Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals Message-ID: <18534@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 6 Sep 90 23:59:57 GMT References: <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> <26E4EC42.42AB@tct.uucp> <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service Lines: 29 X-Clever-Slogan: Recycle or Die. In article barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: >No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in >c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post >anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? since the group name is "comp.unix.internals" some idiot might get the notion that what i am posting is "unix internals". i didn't say it was a correct notion, merely that some idiot might get that notion, and since i have signed non-disclosure agreements which would prevent me from otherwise posting "unix internals", i don't see i can post much of anything related to "unix internals" unless i say "gee, this isn't really unix internals" even though it smells just the same as it did before the group was "unix internals" and was just as "unproprietary" as before. this is the same reason i have abstained from posting to comp.sources.unix for the last 16 months. i don't want some idiot thinking that what i am posting is "unix sources" when it is really "john's sources". postings i make to alt.sources are always very explicit about the lineage of the code for exactly that reason. i'd rather not have to give complete bibliographical data for every thought that i post to this group. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson