[SGVLUG] trademark realities

[Dustin]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Michael Proctor-Smith wrote:

> An OS does not have to be a decended from AT&T code base to be an
> offical "Unix" it just has to pass Unix compatabliity tests. The fact
> is that a linux distro could probable pass these tests but they cost
> lots of money(read hundreds of thosands of dollars).

I know that--IIRC VMS, Microsoft Windows NT (and maybe the later NTs like
2000, XP, Server 2003), and an IBM mainframe OS or three are "unix" by The
Open Group's definition.  Which really is a reducto ad absurdum
demonstrating that the trademark definition of Unix is pointless except to
lawyers.  My point, to the extent I even had one with that little side
comment, is that while I regard both BSD and Linux as "unix," there is
even less reason to call Linux unix than BSD.

The point was--"UUASC" includes both, which sounds generic to me.

But I hope no one will bother themselves too much about it.  There are
still these dwindling little places men can be men and live without
worshipping lawyers.  Let's enjoy them while we can, because the 
Inquisition is probably coming to enforce the state religion in those 
places too. :-(

Dustin