Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!barnett From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals Message-ID: Date: 6 Sep 90 16:58:44 GMT References: <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> <26E4EC42.42AB@tct.uucp> <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 19 In-reply-to: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org's message of 6 Sep 90 13:21:26 GMT In article <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was > that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his > license prohibited him from doing so. What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe to comp.unix.internals? 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? Am I missing something here? -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett