c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals

[Gregory G. Woodbury]

In <BARNETT.90Sep6125844 at grymoire.crd.ge.com> 
barnett at grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes:
>
>In article <18533 at rpp386.cactus.org> jfh at 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 at cds.duke.edu     ggw%wolves at mcnc.mcnc.org
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>