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

[Bruce Barnett]

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? 
--
Bruce G. Barnett	barnett at crd.ge.com	uunet!crdgw1!barnett