Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:23771 alt.flame:23239 news.groups:23505 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!mcnc!wolves!ggw From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,alt.flame,news.groups Subject: Re: c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals Message-ID: <1990Sep7.010347.24458@wolves.uucp> Date: 7 Sep 90 01:03:47 GMT References: <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> <26E4EC42.42AB@tct.uucp> <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> Organization: Wolves Den UNIX and Usenet node Lines: 57 X-Checksum-Snefru: 59881954 49cf7285 6e235606 43726f39 In barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > >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? No, Bruce, you aren't missing anything, except perhaps the view of the pouting faces of Doug Gwyn and John Haugh, III. They are (apparently) quite miffed that "their" newsgroup was renamed under their noses. I, too, am not happy that c.u.wizards is no longer an official newsgroup, but I voted against the name change and lost, fair and square. Like a good net.citizen (one of the few, it seems) I actually read news.group and evaluate the discussions. Like, D.G. and JFH3, I also have signed various license and non-disclosure agreements in my varied positions and situations, and reviewing the texts, it is clear that there is not terribly much of my unix knowledge that I cannot share with the world. There are lots of certain application specific things that I still feel honor-bound to not reveal (even though certain time limits have expired and some of the information has been published in some obscure tech journals), but the most wizardly things that I am likely to discuss here are publicly available in a variety of forms. It is just possible that some people are frightened by the posturings and quibblings of various lawyers (net and real) and have been advised to limit their participation, but I can't really see them not stating that up front. No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to eat "worms". -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ]