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

[Frank Peters]

In article <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? 

One of the terms of a UNIX source license is that the licensee agrees
not to discuss the internals of the UNIX operating system with
unlicensed individuals.

A posting to a group named comp.unix.internals could easily be viewed
as prima facie evidence of a violation of that agreement.

I can see Doug or John in court now:

     "Yes your honor I do participate regularly in a newsgroup named
      comp.unix.internals but I never discuss the internals of the
      UNIX operating system there!  HONEST!"

At least with comp.unix.wizards you'd have a reasable chance of
defending your case.

Regards,
FWP
--
--
Frank Peters   Internet:  fwp1 at CC.MsState.Edu         Bitnet:  FWP1 at MsState
               Phone:     (601)325-2942               FAX:     (601)325-8921