Igor Kovalenko wrote:
“Kevin N” <> xxxx@yyyy.com> > wrote in message news:dg769u$ls7$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Just my $0.02, but I would suggested comp.os.qnx as the place to go. It is
a general purpose QNX newsgroup that is not run by QNX. All the qnx.*
groups are provided by QNX for the purpose of supporting their RTOS.
This is an artifical distinction. Even if QNX provides this forum, they
can’t stop people from saying whatever they consider relevant.
Sure they can. Many web-based discussion forums on the Internet are provided at
the discretion of the owners of the web site. Many do police their own sites
(with deputies called “Moderators”) and censor the discussions going on. This
ranges from removing material that they may worry about being illegal (and thus
don’t want to host on their site) to squelching flame wars. While such
discussion forums are public in the sense that pretty much anyone can join and
post, they are still owned by someone (or corporate entity) that can pretty much
do whatever they want with it.
The only distinction between the qnx.* newsgroups and these web-based forums is
the medium: NNTP vs. HTTP. Unlike the comp.os.qnx newsgroup, I believe the qnx.*
groups are provided by QNX itself and only via inn.qnx.com. Sure, anyone can
subscribe and post, but since QNX hosts and owns these groups, I think they can
do pretty much whatever they want. Now whether they choose to exercise this
level of control is entirely up to them - thus far I haven’t seen any evidence
of them doing so.
comp.os.qnx is not owned by QNX. It may be available via inn.qnx.com, presumably
as a courtesy to their customers, but they don’t own it in any way. The group
can be accessed from many other NNTP servers and even via web interfaces
(groups.google.com).
In Russia
drivers blink their high-beam lights to oncoming traffic to warn about
traffic police ambushes ahead. Federal government might consider this misuse
of the roads (they weren’t built for that purpose, right?) but people might
think the government can stuff it.
I think a better comparision is to a privately owned newspaper. The publisher is
free to publish whatever articles and letters to the editor that they choose.
They can’t do anything about you exercising your freedom of speech elsewhere,
but they certainly don’t have to publish your letter to the editor.
BTW, I’ve actually heard (though I’ve never had it verified) that it is illegal
in many places to warn other motorists of speed traps ahead. Of course, that
doesn’t mean people don’t do it. 
What John did was essentially a high-beam blink to warn people about the
situation they might face with HW-locked software in general and Mindready
QNX DDK in particular. Since a lot of potential ‘drivers’ (developers) would
drive down this ‘road’ (qnx.ddk) it is as good place as any to warn them.
I don’t disagree with this at all. I think the information John is providing is
very useful. All I am suggesting is to use a medium that is not owned by QNX to
raise these issues.
K.