OK, fair enough, but aside from whether or not Húrin should be called a 'betrayer' in the same sense as Maeglin could, I mean: does Húrin become the principle betrayer from a storial perspective, simply because of what occurred. In other words, the information that Morgoth long sought and prized was provided by Húrin -- the location of Gondolin, and thus Maeglin must give Morgoth more to buy his release...
... because the things Maeglin offers (in the two notes) don't seem to be about location. And it
seems chronologically possible that in the 'changed' version an assault could already be in the works when Maeglin is caught.
Maeglin's actions are not Húrin's of course, but has Tolkien raised the curse here, in a sense, giving storial emphasis (if that makes sense) to Húrin's actions, with Maeglin's treachery connected to other (though admittedly important to Morgoth) concerns: undermining resistance and making sure Tuor and Earendil are slain.
Keeping both descriptions in the 1977 Silmarillion still seems to keep a strong emphasis on Maeglin
and location... because what he reveals is the 'very' location of Gondolin, implying that without his more detailed information, no assault was yet possible. Despite the wording of the Húrin passage, Húrin's words were not enough for an attack on Gondolin.
Or as I say: does the Silmarillion as published imply this? do people agree with that much?
Incidentally, in my quote above, that should read:
'Stale news will buy nothing' 