The initial lauch of Growlaw was most welcome. What wasn't to like? It was a playful mix of legalinformation and a sort of "stick it to the man" attitude.
Over time however the hiding of PJ does seriously make me doubt "her" existence. To remain anonymous seems contrary to open source principles, at least if you consider transparency or open communication part of those principles.
In some ways it's like accepting code from Anonymous. PJ's "code" was great "code", it seemed to hit the mark, and there was quality there, but you have to wonder about who is behind the mask. There is no reason for PJ to remain anonymous. The SCO battle has been won, stand up, take your bow, accept your awards, good heavens do the open source world a favor and speak at a few conferences.
The patent war however is not over. Nor are the lawsuits which could have substantial affect on open source, consider the many cases surrounding Android. If anything the need for Groklaw is as great as when it started, at least the concept of supportive analysis involving open source legal matters.
But here's the thing, if the only motivation of Groklaw was to vet the circumstances around SCO, Microsoft and Novell it certainly did that. What if PJ was actually being paid to do so? Case over, no more pay, no more website. Does it devalue the work? No, no more than Kernel engineers going to work for a company. If anything it does define an altruistic work vs a sponsored one that might reflect the desires of the sponsor. Without the removal of the anonymous mask we are but left to wonder.