Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Unix Trademark
Jerrry writes "CNET News reports The Open Group is suing Apple over unlicensed use of the Unix trademark, after Apple used the term in conjunction with its Mac OS X marketing. Apple, meanwhile, is countersuing to have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic."
Unix has become a generic term. Removing trademark status would benefit not only Apple, but the free Unixes, Linux and the BSDs.
It has definitely become a generic term. I'd like to see the courts support Apple so that we can all use "Unix" without fear.
Yes, in other news the FGA (Fruit Growers of America) is filing suit against Apple.
"Apple" is pretty damn generic term... get off soapbox!
Davak
After all, Apple has trademarks of their own, how would they like it if MS or some other company started using them without a license?
AC comments get piped to
You know I love Apple as much as the next guy in many respects, although not one of the fanatics who have fallen into the apple marketing hype or a part of the cult(As I love my windows 2000 box as well) and Linux. Well, I love computers.
Anyway, Apple is getting a little taste of it's own medicine. Didn't they sue somone over them copying, or making a similar color scheme on a pc case?
And haven't they sued before for things just a frivilous. Apple is fanatic about protecting their ip.
But maybe they are wrong here.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
I thought that apple paid the Open Group to certify themselves as a Unix, around the time that OS X came out.
What am I missing here?
New Apple Slogan:
"Think Sued..."
... because if you took this stuff any more seriously, you'd have to cry.
SCO suing IBM
Open Group suing Apple
Apple suing Open Group
It's starting to sound like a game of "Six Degrees".
... is available on the site?
i just clicked on this shitty apple sux sco sux, unix sux most article, and it came up with 404?
and now that is available it immediately has 5 replies already!
fuck slashdot
-------
anyways, here is the deal:
time to sue the whole world, maybe it will get a better place after everybody fights everone else and their borthers
jeez, and i thought the open group had some higher values and beliefs =)
oh i forgot, its only apple. those traitors deserve it.
macos-sux? a unix u say?
no way. sue em to oblivion.
thank you.
A/UX was Apple's first try at a Unix operating system and was based on System V Release 2.2. But that wasn't where Apple stopped. They added custom extensions from Releases 3 and 4, and the networking and filesystem were from 4.2/4.3BSD. The GUI was System 7.0.1 (for A/UX 3.0.1, the version I use) and Apple's own version of the X Window System called MacX. I would say that this is Unix.
Another example (closer to Mac OS X) is NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP. This OS uses the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with major contributions from Avie Tevanian. This Kernel had no natural interface, so to stay with standards, BSD was used as an interface layer (specifically 4.3BSD was licensed to be used). For a GUI, NeXT developed their own application environment (that would one day become Cocoa) and used Adobe's Display Postscript as the display engine (which Apple would replace after Rhapsody with Quartz, which used Apple's Display PDF in place of Display Postscript). There was no version of X Windows shipped with NeXT systems, but a number of people made versions for NeXT systems (much like people are doing today for Mac OS X). I would say that this is Unix.
I, personally, have a hard time not considering anything that uses either System V or BSD to be Unix. These have been the pillars of this OS, and when not used have been the models for other operating systems. I would not consider POSIX to be a good way to judge a system as being Unix because Windows NT 4.0 was POSIX compliant and it is not Unix.
There is no god
Apple accurately uses the generic term Unix merely to identify or describe an aspect or feature of Apple's Mac OS X operating system.
what is it suppose to mean if I say I've added unix features to my operating system?
bite my glorious golden ass.
If the latest revalations regarding IBM's possible leakage of copyrighted Unix code into Linux have proven anything, it is that using any derivative of this outdated operating system is a legal disaster waiting to happen. Not only is Linux licensed under the anti-business GNU General Public License, but it turns out that commercial code may have been unlawfully added, making it illegal to use or distribute.
This should suprise no one familiar with the history of Unix. The earliest version was an unlicensed ripoff of the proprietary Multics operating system, and was partly responsible for destroying the market for this pioneering operating system. The Berkeley Shareware Distribution (BSD) was sued by AT&T in the early 1990s, for openly distributing copyrighted code in its public-domain source releases. As if this wasn't enough, it turned out that AT&T had also broken the license on code they had taken from BSD, leaving both sides forced to essentially accept the other's illegal behavior in order to avoid stiffer penalties.
Reputable software companies such as Microsoft, though initially interested in Unix, have learned to steer clear of the mess of standards, licenses, and conflicting intellectual property rights that Unix forms. Microsoft Windows XP is the latest release of Microsoft's flagship version of Windows, built from the ground up in the early 1990s based on the most modern concepts in operating systems, without any legacy baggage from the 1970s. And it is available essentially for free, preloaded on hardware from all major manufacturers. There is really no reason to use anything else, unless you need a truly high-performance computing system such as IBM's proprietary OS/390 or HP's OpenVMS.
Apple, meanwhile, is countersuing to have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic. Thank the great good lord someone with clout is finally going to push this position. Incidentally I've only ever seen Apple use the phrase 'Unix-based' or 'unix-like' in their advertising literature, but I haven't been exhaustive by any means. It's good to see them at least put up a good fight in the name of the greater good (i.e., stopping Unix snobs from weilding that particular sledgehammer against Linux) rather than just capitulating and signing a cheque, which they're certainly able to do.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
What, no offer from IBM, so SCO is wooing another potential buyout?
Unbelievable.
Suing over the name Unix doesn't sound very "open" to me. Guess they're trying to give SCO a run for the money in the bad PR department.
SCO sues Open Group for illegal suing over the Unix trademark.
Followed by:
SCO sues Mr. Sketch for using the term 'Unix' in a public discussion forum without their prior permissions.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
If most people look on it that way, the trademark is probably generic.
Guess they're not so Open about things after all?
Where do they come up with these names?
IMHO, it's better that Apple settles, thwn Open Group can take $110K out of SCO's legal fund, just to weaken the bastids further.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
I ate an Apple 'Apple Corp' was dreamt up!
Why don't i sue Apple for infringement of me being able to make a computational device from apples. In what was does 'Apple' resemble an aple in functionality. On behalf of COXs everywhere, I will Sue Apple for the COX abacus.
Because I hate it when my rich-boy Machead roommate says "and what about Windows XP? what's it based on?" As though he automatically has better hardware than me just because he can afford a G4 and all I have is this lousy Athlon.
Apple, meanwhile, is countersuing to have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic.
;login: immediately come to mind. I'm sure there's dozens of others. If this "trademark" hasn't been enforced in any other cases, how can they possibly stand a chance to win against Apple?
"Unix" has become just like "Xerox". I truly hope this is an open and shut win for Apple because this lawsuit is just plain bullshit. Everyone from magazines to manuals to all kinds of marketing material use the term "Unix" extensively. SysAdmin and
Enough with the frivilous lawsuits already!!
Join Tor today!
the use of "*nix" should pretty much prove their point.
I have no idea who the "Open Group" is, but it sounds like they pretend to support GNU/Linux. Suing for things like the name "Unix" however seems to me to be very much against the ideals of GNU and the FSF. I'd keep a close eye on this organization; they sound like posers.
Now if IBM would just sue Kevin Bacon, you'd really have something there...
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Apple has countersued, asking a judge to declare that the trademark is invalid, because the term Unix has become generic.
And it has. So many companies have been marketing and otherwise throwing around the name "UNIX" for so long now -- what do you think the chances are that The Open Group formally licensed their trademark to each and every one of them?
The timing and selection of this lawsuit reeks of convenience.
The coolest voice ever.
The day just isn't the same without a UNIX related lawsuit.... lately I've been thinking the medieval witch test (the water drowning one) could easily find itself a new vocation in detecting corrupt lawyers.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Who is Sue?
These Unix patent/license holder companies' lawsuits are really getting annoying. Unix is about open standards, it seems to me that suing someone who makes a Unix product to get a bucketload of license money is just an attempt to reshape the Unix world into the same pattern as Microsoft's nightmarish licensing model.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
UNIX UNIX my computer runs on a UNIX like OS, which is Linux - now sue me. I just used the UNIX trademark.
According to their web pages, NetBSD and OpenBSD are "UNIX-like operating system[s]", and FreeBSD is "derived from BSD UNIX". Since parts of OSX are from FreeBSD, I could see why they can say Unix-based.
I commend them for taking it to court instead of settling, but surely they should have known that the *BSDs started because of these same issues with the Unix owners. I wonder why they stepped into this minefield.
(http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/unix-nat ure.html)
Master Foo discourses on the Unix Nature
A student said to Master Foo: âoeWe are told that the firm called SCO holds true dominion over Unix.â
Master Foo nodded.
The student continued, âoeYet we are also told that the firm called OpenGroup also holds true dominion over Unix.â
Master Foo nodded.
âoeHow can this be?â asked the student.
Master Foo replied:
âoeSCO indeed has dominion over the code of Unix, but the code of Unix is not Unix. OpenGroup indeed has dominion over the name of Unix, but the name of Unix is not Unix.â
âoeWhat, then, is the Unix-nature?â asked the student.
Master Foo replied:
âoeNot code. Not name. Not mind. Not things. Always changing, yet never changing.â
âoeThe Unix-nature is simple and empty. Because it is simple and empty, it is more powerful than a typhoon.â
âoeMoving in accordance with the law of nature, it unfolds inexorably in the minds of programmers, assimilating designs to its own nature. All software that would compete with it must become like to it; empty, empty, profoundly empty, perfectly void, hail!.â
Upon hearing this, the student was enlightened.
The first time I saw it on the OSX page a few years ago. I wondered how they could use it without licensing true Unix technology.
This is pretty lame. I'm rather disgusted with the bickering, suing, counter-suing, and zealotry going on between both commercial and open-source *NIX organizations. It almost makes me want to switch back to Micro$oft from FreeBSD. ...almost.
(It's a shame BeOS isn't really on the map anymore. It didn't fall into the category of a *NIX.)
It has definitely become a generic term. I'd like to see the courts support Apple so that we can all use "Unix" without fear.
e a generic term. Removing trademark status would benefit not only Apple, but the free Unixes, Linux and the BSDs.
When was the last time that some company came out with Unix v9.0 or whatever?
Slipping Away...
It also seems that there isn't a true UNIX anymore, it is just a term for anything that is text based and uses the same flow of commands in a command prompt, and is portable to other OS's. Didn't Microsoft claim that win2k was unix before too? How exactly do you define a UNIX OS today anyways? It is a VERY broad term indeed.
apple would sue you if you had an interface that was 'apple like'
OTOH a pear's interface is 'apple like'. heh
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You're using our trademarked slogan. :-D
Plz buy us out now. thnx!
Is not Winows a generic term, not only for panes of glass, but also generic in the computer sense as well. Lindows thinks so and has a suit against MS.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
In any case, no company is required to pay more than $110,000, said Graham Bird, vice president of marketing for The Open Group.
You know the legal battle will cost much, much more than that...but instead of doing what makes economic sense, they're doing what's right, and taking the burden off the rest of us. Because you know that if the Open Group succeeds, they're probably going to start suing red-hat and other linux distros for explaining that linux is "unix based" in their FAQ.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I never liked "GNU/Linux"... it's sounds kinda hokey... but "GNU/Unix" has a nice ring to it...
:)
You get everything, Unix and Not-Unix all rolled together
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
When someone asks you about "UNIX," what's the first thing that comes to mind? BSD? A Class of Operating Systems? Linux? SCO? Sun? IBM? Apple? DOS?
I'll tell you what the answer is NOT: The OPEN GROUP. I don't even have a clue what they do. Most people have never heard of them, even most people who know what unix is.
Also, Apple is accurately describing their OS when they say it is Unix-Based.
The mark should be generic.
"Windows" is also a very generic term, and there you had Microsoft going after Lindows in the same way.
That case should provide enough precedence, although The Open Group may be doing this precisely to set precedence on the whole SCO fiasco. I smell something fishy about this.
Also, I'm a little confused on how can they say Apple used the trademark without a license. AFAIK Apple didn't use any source code from UNIX directly, they based Darwin from BSD, which in turn should have a clear relationship with the UNIX trademark, am I wrong?
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
If Apple does this, they can sell their OS as an actual Unix. This would seem to be great as an advertising angle. It is one thing to know that an Apple machine would make a good server because it is Unix-like underneath, but it would have a great impact if it could say Unix right on the box. People who need a new Unix server may start thinking of Apple first.
They have already switched over to a Unix-y system, so why not make the most of it?
a toilet papaer brand called SCO with no trademark problems.
Actually, that's reserved for Authentic SCO Stock(TM)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
That'll fix him
Neither Linux nor the BSDs infringe upon this trademark, and of course the Open Group has made significant contributions to the Linux Standard Base (about 95% of the test-suite software, I'm told) and has been working on an Open Source Strategy with me since last year. You'll like it. It's in internal review now.
If you would like to send a message to the Open Group, I would not be a bad intermediary to use. Please write to me at bruce @ perens.com . I am on the road right now and will not be able to engage in a long debate on Slashdot, so email will be best.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
thank you.
As much as an Apple fan I am, I think they should pay up; a license is a license, and the Open Group clearly have a trademark of 'Unix'.
After all, Apple has trademarks of their own, how would they like it if MS or some other company started using them without a license?
If they are generic, please list those Apple trademarks that are generic.
If they are not generic, have a nice, warm cup of STFU.
P.S. Apple is not a generic term in the software/computer industry, so that doesn't count.
To me I think fruit.
I see a story at osopinion about Apple's use of the Unix trademark. This has been stewing for a while, but back then it did not look like it would come to a law suit. In fact at the end of the story there is an update that indicated that Apple was getting closer to the Open Group.
Lee Joramo
That's what I always thought.
isn't that the operating system robin williams uses??
In my opinion, all these lawsuits and accusations have just become pointless and ridiculous. So Apple used the Unix trademark while marketing OS X! Who cares? I've never even heard of the Open Group. What business do they have suing Apple? If anyone is suing Apple it should be IBM or SCO or whoever really owns Unix.
Since Darwin is really a BSD-offshoot, shouldn't it have the same rights?
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
I thought that apple paid the Open Group to certify themselves as a Unix, around the time that OS X came out.
Suing over the name Unix doesn't sound very "open" to me.
Guess they're trying to give SCO a run for the money in the bad PR department.
Slipping Away...
All this suing is getting ridiculous.
credibility. Admitting to reading ESR certainly deep sixes said credibility, however.
I woke up this morning and ate my Unix brand cereal, talked on the Unix for a while, and then Unixed my car to work.. How can anyone say Unix is not generic!!?
Apple has a rock solid case, the Opengroup can go Unix themselves
I agree with apple, "eunuchs" has been in the english vocabulary for hundreds of years...
//obligatory geek == lack of action joke
heck, Funny Cide almost won the triple crown, and he was a eunuch.
diff eunuch.action geek.action == ""
The OpenGroup (which used to be X/Open) is a nonprofit, like the FSF, which owns the trademark and licenses it when a system has successfully passed a compatibility test. The notion is that any UNIX should be (at least approximately) compatible. I'm not at all sure if Linux could pass, since it has, eg, a rename(2) system call in place of unlink. The money that OpenGroup gets is used to continue their standards operation. See
This press release on the UNIX trademark and SCO
this one on testing and certification.
What the OpenGroup doesn't do is support open source per se -- unlike GPL'ed code, you can be OpenGroup certified and still be closed source. Bad bad OpenGroup, they're not RMS-correct.
Based on what? Are we to understand that frequent use of a trademark renders it generic? That is utterly preposterous. The Unix trademark is as zealously defended as the law requires, and beyond any reasonable doubt it is most certainly not generic. Is "Volkswagen" generic? How about "Coke" when referring to a beverage? Try it out in the marketplace and see how far you get.
Get real, folks.
The story really is poorly reported by not including this information, and the rabid /.'ers posting would do well to have done the minimal amount of research before expressing strong opinions (this is the www...)
In any case the "Unix" certification is one of those check-off items that get used in evaluations so whether or not there's any real value to it there is an effective value. "Unix", "Posix", this-book/that-book compliance; they're common evaluation criteria and having or not having them is very important.
Of course the question is has "Unix" become a generic word like "Crayon" became or is it still specific to a vendor like "Xerox" or "Kleenex". YMMV but it looks like to me T.O.G. may have a point and paying through the nose may be one of Apples costs for the best selling Unix distribution out there.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
"It's a UNIX system! I know this!!!"
Did Crichton and Spielberg pay a license for that?
why do people being fond of suing other people? i dont understand people.. oh well. probably has do with money problem. so suing is always the way for people to get money. heh, I wonder microsoft sue lindow, but they have plentiful moneys.
find the marketing genius that came up with this.
Apple used the term in conjunction with its Mac OS X marketing
have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic
At least it seems that apple has now realized its product is generic and is using terms to describe it that way. So much for brand recognition. I find it amusing that the suit and tie crowd in advertising is getting PAID to declare their product generic.
Everybody know that is a fighting fool of a boy named Sioux ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
... isn't it?
Who's the rightful owner of the UNIX trademark right now?
i reckon if a name was created and used by a company, and that company is still using it commercially or non-commercially, then that name shouldn't be generic. On the other hand, names like Apple, Windows are nouns since the beginning of time (Adam), then they are generic.
i once received a formal notice from Sellotape(tm) which sells, err, Sellotape(tm) tapes, to remove [or to add (tm) to] all references of sellotapes(tm) on a girlguide site that i sponsor and host. i think the innocent girlguide site was asking all girls to remember to bring some sellotapes (now renamed to adhesive tapes) when they're out camping or something...
While Sellotape(tm) is so commonly used even by my grandparents' generation (hey dude, pass me a pen and some sellotapes!), it's still a company trademark and the owner will try his best to protect it.
Funny thing is, Apple is a member of the Open Group.
Apple are suing God as well? How do they intend to serve him the notice?
Are there any non-Christian mythoi also involving apples?Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
-1: WRONG
My guess is that they were negotiating terms for the Term UNIX, and the talks broke down. It would probably be best (and cheaper) for them to compromise and settle.
darwin-dev# sed 's/unix/un\*x/g' *
As things go, I am pretty sure that if somebody decided to call his dog slashdot, he would get sued (and the dog too for good measure).
Can't this lawsuit craze stop?
Unix has definately become public domain. Just like the term Xerox or Instant Messenger. If Open Group is going to sue Apple over the term Unix, they may as well sue Linux for having Unix displayed in the kernel boot messages. They may as well just sue other Unix variants for using the term Unix over and over again.
I guess the "Open" part of The Open Group is responsible for suing companies who [i]openly[/i] use the term "Unix".
Unix isn't an acronym. It's not an abbreviation. It's a word used to denote a certain type or style of operating system. The Open Group suing Apple over the use of the word "Unix" is the equivalent of Breyers suing Baskin Robbins over the user of the word "Vanilla".
Its sad, really....Watching all the old Unix dinosaurs die. Rather than embrace what Unix has become in the past 10 years, and become kick-ass companies in their own right, they'd rather throw lawsuits around. SCO and The Open Group could easilly become major players if they simply modified their business plan a little.
The Unix world isn't comprised of a handful of companies with reinforced concrete walls separating them anymore. By refusing to acknowledge it, they're chiseling their own gravestone, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves when the company goes under.
If a company's reluctance to adapt to changing marketplace is any measure of when that event should occur, the case for SCO and The Open Group is long, long overdue. Unix doesn't exist in a vacuum anymore. The Open Group seems to insist that it still does.
Sorry guys. Lawsuits will no sooner make your business model viable than driving my car backwards will make it newer.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Apple licenses the one-click patent held by Amazon but cheaps out on the UNIX trademark?
It seems to me that everyone (and I mean absolutely everyone) who has so far posted here is missing one important aspect of this licensing/evaluation issue.
Unix is a standard. As I understand it, Linux is referred to as "*nix" because it hasn't passed the Open group's Unix standards evaluation. Just as companies are ISO-certified when they meet certain workflow, structural, managerial, and who-knows-what standards according to a very expensive evaluation, an OS will be certified as "Unix" once having been evaluated as specifically matching those standards.
Investors and entities considering contracting a company's services will use the "ISO-whatever" certification as an indicator that that company has been evaluated to have a certain set of qualities, just as those evaluating operating systems for a project will use the "Unix" certification as an indication of the OS's having met a certain set of standards.
Now, I'll have to leave the value and full meaning of the "Unix" standard up to someone else to define for us, but the point is that it is not the simple purchase of the right to use a trademark name.
Starting with Windows NT, there was a "POSIX compatibility layer" in Windows, but I don't believe that Microsoft ever claimed to be offering "Unix." However, if Apple were to win this suit, it is conceivable that the precedent would be set that would allow Microsoft - and anyone else producing an operating system - to claim that their operating systems wer "Unix."
If the term "Unix" is judged to have become as generic as "Kleenex," then there might well be a need to come up with another name, so that there can be a standard for future reference.
Personally, I suspect that Apple is not "upholding a principle" by not paying for a name that should be available to all breeds of "*nix," but rather that they know of something or many somethings that would prevent OS X from meeting the Open Group's Unix standard.
Is A/UX free as in beer like other old Apple operating systems? If so, do you know where one could aquire a copy of it?
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Oh yeah, well I saw it coming back in 1985 when I used my first Mac. Back then I said to myself "wow, I think Apple should port Unix to this computer" and then "I bet one day Apple will make a Unix, but fail to pay off the Unix people and so sue them". Boy was I prescient.
Well, I'm suing Apple, Open, SCO, IBM, all you lot, and cowboy neal's mama. Hell, I'm suing my mom too, she uses computers, I betcha she's up to no good.
Ive never understood why if something becomes popular and everyone uses its name (illegally) it becomes public property. So i guess if you want to use something's name, just say it a bunch and your all set.
Everybody seems to sue everybody and who will be next? Maybe the one owning the patent of 'operating systems' or just 'software' has to sue all software companies. Or maybe someone has the patent of 'sueing computer-related companies' and sues SCO, The Open Group and all others.... :)
Slashdot should start a poll like:
Which companies will sue eachother next week?
a) The Open Group -> SCO
b) 'The Open Source Community' -> SCO
c) SCO -> SCO
d) The Open Group -> Microsoft
:wq!
suing Apple over unlicensed use of the Unix trademark
Man I shoulda trademarked the phrase "Windows sucks!". I would've been richer than 10 Bill Gates...
...the Open Group also filed suit against the International Harem Guards' Union for claiming that they "work well with UNIX"
yeah, what's more interesting is that apple is a member of the open group and therefore one of the ones who own that trademark.
Apple is a ummm... MEMBER of the open group and (I could be wrong) probably at least partially owns the trademark on the term?
But considering the term Unix has become generic it's time for the trademark to be whacked anyway, so here here apple.
The goal of the lawsuit is to maintain the Unix Standard. This is not a bad thing. The Open Group owns the definition of Unix and the test suite, and of course the trademark. Things that don't certify to the standard can call themselves anything but "Unix". This sort of certification bound with a trademark is compatible with Open Source, and is a way that Open Source proponents have generally recommended that business people protect their brand and trademark.
Neither Linux nor the BSDs infringe upon this trademark.
Slipping Away...
call me
definition for 'unix'
........
UNIX: A trademark used for a computer disk operating system.
A powerful operating system developed at the Bell Telephone Laboratories
Unix" or "UNIX"? Both seem roughly equally popular, perhaps
with a historical bias towards the latter. "UNIX" is a
registered trademark of The Open Group, however, since it is
a name and not an acronym, "Unix" has been adopted in this
dictionary except where a larger name includes it in upper
case. Since the OS is case-sensitive and exists in many
different versions, it is fitting that its name should reflect
this
I'm unsure how Apple is supposed to have violated the Open Group's trademark here. Their marketing only ever describes Mac OS X as "based on Unix" or "Unix-like". It never explicitly says "Mac OS X is UNIX", which I'd always thought was what you'd need to do to violate the Unix trademark. The BSDs and Linux are marketed as "Unix-like" all the time; the default motd on my OpenBSD machines tells me it's "the proactively secure Unix-like operating system" every time I log in. You don't see the Open Group suing them.
I wonder, though, how hard it would be for Apple to just get OS X certified by the Open Group. However much work it might take to get Mac OS X to comply with UNIX 03, and certify it, I doubt it would be that much more than their legal costs will be to both defend themselves and sue the Open Group back. And it would definitely be a good thing if Mac OS X were to comply more closely with industry standards and be certified as a genuine Unix system.
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
Dear Sir/Madam
/. ÂÂ 1234(c) and 666(b), the undersigned parties, bad_fx and bad_fx, attorney(IANAL) and Slashdot reader, hereby provide notice to the you, AC, pursuant to the Slashdot no-typo Act, 58 B.S.D ÂÂ E=mc^2 et seq. , of the claim which is to be brought against you in respect of damages and injuries suffered by me as a result of the insistance of afore mentioned AC to mispell "thought."
In accordance with the notice requirements of 67
As a result of the AC's gross neglect, on 12 June 2003, while reading slashdot, I sustained substantial personal psychological injuries and mental damage, the particulars of which will be set forth in a Statement Claim.
Kindly learn to type before others are hurt.
Sincerely,
Me
it is still a protected copyrighted brand name. Other similar products have to call themselves "facial tissues". So just because a name enters general usage to generically refer to a type of product does not mean it's trademark status disappears.
.
I really wish Apple the best on this but I think they are going to loose. It obvious that they are doing this on principle because the money involved to get the license is minimal to a corporation like them (although the certification testing can be quite expensive I hear). I think it is ridiculous that BSD can't be called Unix when it is really more rightfully "unix" than something like AIX. There is not a single "UNIX (c)" system around today that does not descend from BSD (even SysV decends from BSD/Research Unix)
So. Go Apple Go!... but don't forget you are running uphill on this.
Is this a first post?
o iw equ89719847123984712376487126876298734621378468732 16487126387463128746872196439871263498761238746129 87346897213648762138794619873264987213648762134987 31240987213894687321649287136987462139876498732164 98764329872136465119872642398712369874612398764987 21364987126349876432198743619873264987123698746132 98746i pu
... ...
No, this is NOT a first post!
Slashdot sucks
Slashdot sucks
Apple sucks
Goat sex!
Goat sex!
Goat sex!
Goat sex!
asdlkfjal;sdkjfdslafjasldk;jf;lkasdjfkljsadklfj
asdlk;jfas;lkjeoiwpqurlkdsafoiqwuerljasdfo
asdl;fjwqopiure;lkasjdfl;qweropiu
$$!!!...
asldkfjasd
suck my ballz!
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
Goat sex!
Goat sex!
Goat sex!
Goat sex!
Mod this up!
Guess what, a PC manufacturer just did.
Are you now going to walk around saying "Gateway is teh gay" now? Because according to your logic, Gateway deserves the tag now.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
IANAL, yeah, yeah.
Yes, frequent use as a generic term does render a trademark invalid, at least unless the trademark owner zealously fights againt the generic use of the term. I have a hard time swallowing the argument that the Unix trademark is zealously defended because I always hear the name used generically to describe "Unix-like" operating systems, and this is the first time I remember hearing about anyone complaining about that. It never even occurred to me that "Unix" had been trademarked until recent events brought the issue up.
Of course, I'm just one person, and maybe I just haven't heard of the Open Group's efforts. But from what others have posted here, I'd have to say it sounds like a lot of people consider Unix to be a generic term.
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
What about the trademark cases that gave The Open Group unix.net and unix.org. unix.net was hosted on one of my servers and when it was STOLEN by The Open Group via an ICANN bribe (donation) we were very mad. As anyone would be im sure. So, if Appl wins, would there be a way to reverse that decision being that it was such a short time ago?
"Once a trademark is selected, it is important to use it properly. Failure to use a trademark properly can result in loss of the trademark. Ways to lose trademark rights generally fall into three categories. Abandonment occurs when one stops using the mark and has no intent to resume using it. A mark will be lost by actions or failures to take action, that cause the mark to lose its significance. Also, a mark can be lost by becoming *generic* if the public comes to think of a mark as the identity of a particular brand of a product. This is really a subset of actions or inaction causing a mark to lose its significance. For example, some people think that Kleenex brand of facial tissue, Xerox brand photocopy machines, and Band-Aid brand adhesive strips are in danger of falling into this category. "
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Here's also a report from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Slashdot... otherwise known as Second-Rate-News.
All such headlines should read... "XXX sues YYY, both XXX and YYY and their respective lawyers get cream pie in face."
I would pay good money to see that happen.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The solution is simple, yet difficult: Close Open Group:
No unix trade mark, no law suit, no unix, no sco... there you go.
This is a similar situation to Xerox, Thermos, and Cleenex. All were trade names that became generic.
The important issue is whether the owner of the trademark has been actively trying to protect it over the years. In this case, it is pretty obvious that they have not.
Cygwin calls itself a "Linux like environment for Windows." Could Apple say "FreeBSD based environment."... Nothing conveys the information as quickly though as simply mentioning the word Unix.
Not sure if that's a good legal argument though :)
Oh how I hope Apple wins the counter suit, not only because im an Apple zealot but mostly because it will save bandwidth with elitest arguing over UNIX v. Unix v. *nix /.
If Apple wins say good bye to half the posts on
it's joke, laugh.
Are you secure enough in your masculinity to run 'man touch'?
This could also be thought of like someone using the name Kleenex to advertise a box of tissues, or using Band-Aid to sell bandages. They've entered the general vernacular, but they are still trademarks and a company can't necessarily use them to advertise a product. Related to this is the diffuculty that company could say that their tissues are pin compatible with Kleenex Brand tissues, but they couldn't say that they are indeed Kleenex tissues, unless they are repackaged and properly licensed Kleenex tissues. Indeed, the UNIX love triangle has gotten kind of absurd, but there is an amount, albeit a small amount of logic to it.
As far as using a trademark in a descriptive context, Apple is on good ground here... they're not trying to intentionally profit by causing confusion (initial interest confusion) and they are using the name to describe their product faithfully (try dreaming up a way to say "Unix-based" without using "*nix").
1981 Playmate of the Year Terri Wells prevailed in a similar situation where Playboy was attempting to enjoin her from using the terms "playmate" and "playboy" on her website... Apple will prevail if this is not settled.
Remember OS X's first few months? It's "Unix-ness" was somewhat in question as users first sat down with it... overtime any questions regarding its Unix heritage were for the most part, tossed aside. In its marketing, Apple really hasn't pushed the "U" word much at all and when it does, it is always unix-based - hence the initial confusion.
see WIPO
As to Unix:
NetBSDOpenGroup
Nothing like facts to really mess up your argument.
From The Open Group's own website:
Here's also an osOpinion piece from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
that unix has become a generic term...
If the unix trademark is invalidated, who will stop Microsoft from calling their next thing "Microsoft Unix" ?
It's got unlink AND rename. Booyah... /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | grep \\\(unlink\\\|rename\\\)
.long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_unlink) /* 10 */ .long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_rename)
::shrugs::
# cat -n
444
472
Syscalls 10 and 38.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Judge scratches head, "you own what?"
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Of course, most people who think they know what Unix is have something like "something like Linux, but obsolete" in mind. These are probably the same people that couldn't write a half-way portable shell script if their life depended on it, because they wouldn't even know where to look for the relevant standards.
Apple saying that OS X is Unix-based is, of course, fully OK, and not the thing that is debated here. Just like it is OK to say that Linux is "Unix-like". That's not the point.
And you not having a clue may not be the best argument either, by the way.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
I move that we change Linux to Kleenix!
achoo!
I found this very funny, not insightful, its a Taoism text translated to the world of UNIX.
Anyone else just plain fed up and disgusted with things at this point? I don't care who the players are, who or what is being "wronged" or "infringed upon" - I took one look at this topic and felt utterly sick to my stomach. All this litigiousness - it serves no one except for some lawyers and a CEO or two. Anyone really think you I or anyone who actually works on or uses "unix" will benefit from this, regardless of who "wins"?
That's just on this subject - I think my reaction is just a result of a long accumulation of the bile accruing from coming in contact with corporate U$A. The corporation was something that was granted by US the people, to serve US the people, then the corporation became a person itself, and now it seems we serve corporations. But I'll refer back to the original intent of corporations (ie. that they exist mainly to serve the public interest) in asking the following questions. What practical good will these lawsuits do for a majority of the people, directly or indirectly? Where's the benefit to mankind here? Where's the consideration of facilitating free exchange of ideas? Where's the thought toward allowing humanity to progress? Where's the cooperation leading to greater advancements? Where's the interest in posterity, the acknowledgement of building a positive future? Where's the f**king common sense?
If there aren't good answers to these questions at this point, I don't think these things should be taking up time, money, people and resources allocated from money we all pay to support the legal system abused by garbage like this. Basically all we have is some bizzaro world of corporate kindergarten where our petulant companies run to teacher any time they don't get their way and everyone else has to sit back and get screwed by the result. The system doesn't serve us anymore, and I can't even find representatives to get behind who might make things better. Run for office myself? Sorry I don't have the multi millions required to run for office, so I guess I get no representation.
Very depressing. There's got to be something better than what we've got now - and I'm pretty certain it involves putting a pretty short leash on our corporations - a tall order at this point.
To sum up, I hope they both lose - because everyone else already has.
Thanks for these details. Wish I had mod points now.
...for failing to certify that GNU is indeed 'Not Unix'.
"We intend to vigorously protect our trademark against anyone improperly claiming to be Unix-like, Unix-based or in this case 'Not Unix'. The FSF has been brazenly negating the Unix trademark without extensive testing to insure their products fail all of our stringent compatability tests" - Open Group Guy
Sources close to the case say damages could run into the millions due to the recursive nature of the violation.
To a great degree, because of all this FUD being thrown about, my employer has decided to throw nearly $100K into MS's pockets to repurchase all our network infrastructure with all new W2003 servers and CALs. This is happening in lean economic times when we really cant afford it and actually have no immediate pressing need to "upgrade" our existing NT4 stuff, other than MS's end-of-lifing NT4 (and prematurely, IMHO).
Oh well, at least I'll be getting plenty of hands on experience very soon with MS's latest stuff, which will keep my MS-skillset current, and also keep my "employability" level up pretty high, so really I have no reason to complain... Eh?
Anything that fizzes is Coke in Alabama. If you want the red-and-white Dynamic Ribbon(tm)-decorated drink, you have to specify a "Co-Cola."
Honestly, I was 16 before I ever heard the word "pop" and it still sounds like nails on a chalkboard... =)
"I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing."
When BSDI's BSD/386 was first released, they advertised their phone number - 800-ITS-UNIX - implying indirectly that the operating system was a UNIX derivative. Lawsuits ensued, and instead of trying to prove that UNIX was generic, BSDI just changed the phone number to settle on that count. USL defended the trademark.
That round of lawsuits, though, paved the way for freeing the BSD 4.4 Lite code base to be used by *BSD and Linux operating systems to build their products. Acknowledge the efforts of those people (BSDI and the University of California) when you run your free operating system today.
The trademark had been defended in the past, and Apple can either try to defend their use of "Unix" (like it seems they're doing) or side-step the issue (like BSDI). Sure, there's alot of pollution in the press where journalists mistake a free operating systems for a "Unix-based" operating system or use the term "unix" generically, but the current trademark owners might have a leg to stand upon when it comes to corporate advertising of a product. I can't think of any company that advertised an operating system as "Unix" and got away with it.
Frankly, the term "Unix" has as much stigma to it (expensive, incompatable, hard to administer, not Microsoft) as it does positive (stability, scalability, not Microsoft). Apple could do without using "Unix" in its advertising and continue to market the operating system on its own merits. To fight for use of the "Unix" trademark seems to me to be waste of shareholder money. Is the benefit to Apple worth the expense of fighting the lawsuit?
IANAL; YMMV; yadda yadda yadda
-ez
(*) "Unix" is a trademark of <insert company du jour>.
Apple suing claiming that a term is generic. How hilarious!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Some things never change. The constant bickering over names, standards, and licenses in the unix community 20 years ago was one of the things that kept unix from really taking off. While all the unix providers, licensers, and organizations were suing each other and refusing to cooperate, Linux and Windows servers just took over most of the marketplace. I was hoping all this crap was behind us, but now SCO, Novell, and the Open Group are starting it all over again. All those innept idiots that managed to screw things up so badly in the past, now want a piece of the pie. And companies will keep buying Windows Server 2003.
On the other hand, it's not clear to me that Apple has violated the trademark. They are a little sloppy when they talk about OS X's Unix origins -- they really should make it clear that they have no license for the Unix trademark -- but it's perfectly legitimate for them to claim that OS X is derived from Unix.
Really this is about the Open Group struggling to hang onto the shreds of its dwinding relevence. Sun and HP still go through the motions of certifying their right to use the Unix trademark, but they don't make a big thing about it. And Linux continues to eat into the Unix marketplace, even though it isn't certified as compliant with any Unix specification. It probably could be, if anybody were willing to spend the money. But nobody is, and nobody cares -- which is bad for Open Group.
So I didn't do my research and other people already called me on it in a more subtle manner. I'm terribly sorry if I offended you in some way (because you certainly seem offended). Anyway, thanks for being redundant.
First of all, I assume that neither Apple nor the The Open Group reads what I post, and I would not care for them to; it never was my purpose.
Secondly, in my defense: The Open Group through their advocacy of an open standards has tried to align themselves with Linux in at least one way that I can see; The Linux Standards Base. I couldn't find where they mentioned exactly what kind of involvement they have in this organization, but I would be curious to find out. If you could educate me, I'd be grateful. qortra
When someone asks you about "UNIX," what's the first thing that comes to mind?
/.
A bunch of dickless guys. Kinda like
This is a feature, not a bug. It allows multiple username/password pairs that define the same uid for purposes of priveleges, but may have entirely different and customized operating environments via the home directory and login shell specified for that user. It makes it possible, for example, to
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Yes, but Phillips, the owner of the Compact Disc trademark, would not sue someone over its use.
In fact, they are the ones that allow for blank discs to be avialble, and Phillips is the one that allowed the Compact Disc to become an open format.
They tend to be a very fair company, a rarity in today's world of SCO, Microsoft, etc.
So Apple "supports" the idea of a common Unix specification. That's like saying they "support" world peace or they "support" medical marijuana laws. It doesn't mean they are doing anything tangible to advance the supported goal.
Heck, even *I* support the idea of a common Unix specification.
You do understand the difference between calling a product UNIX and calling your UNIX-based product UNIX-based, don't you?
In other related news; brought to light by The Open Group's action toward Apple's use of the word Unix, Unisys has decided to sue Apple Computer Corp. for $1 billion for using their proprietary GIF format on their UNIX website without paying proper royalties.
"BadTimes will make you fall in love with a penguin" - Laika
/me dons tinfoil beanie
The timing of this is highly suspect. Apple is less than two weeks from unveiling Mac OS X 10.3, and signs are that they'll be announcing new 64-bit Power Macs based on the 970. Couple that with the fact that Quark has finally gotten their shit together and all those designers will be able to upgrade computer and OS, the Mac platform is poised to become a juggernaut.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if some money to bankroll this lawsuit was coming, although circuitously, from our good friends at Microsoft-- scared because Longhorn is still a few horizons away and there's nothing good in the pipeline before it, and looking around desperately for something to obstruct/embarass Apple's progress.
Seriously.
Apple has sued other PC makers for too closely copying the iMac. That's their trade dress and they've every right to it.
However Apple hasn't sued any toaster manufacturers unless you're referring to some of the really bad Compaq designs that ran really hot. Nor blender makers, vacuum manufacturers, not even the George Foreman Grill folks.
Just PC and OS folks too closely infringing on the iMac's trade dress.
Go ahead, rebut me. Find a citation where Apple has sued a non-computer related company for infringing. Apple iMac-identical items aside Apple has and can lay no claim to products with swoopy translucent plastic casings in bright colors. Rowenta irons, vTech phones, PaperMate ballpoint pens, all can be as harmonious as they wish with apple's iMac and remain unharassed.
If you've got a problem with a company go ahead and express it but don't go making things up.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
When someone asks you about "UNIX," what's the first thing that comes to mind?
/
# rm -rf
among other misadventures that you just can't have on windows.
Slashdot needs a +1, Eloquent moderation for those posts that are, well, eloquent. You know the ones i mean.
"AT&T GIS" was AT&T Global Information Solutions until 1996, when it became once again NCR. Do they update their websites that infrequently? Pathetic.
sulli
RTFJ.
Help me remember:
Monday is patch your windows server day
Tuesday is patch your Linux box day
Wednesday is file a Unix lawsuit day?
Your favorite
What's Unix?
The marketing would be even better. Imagine "OSX is the most sellable Linux distro!". Or even "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of OSX!" :)
Also imagine if they would hire Linus and made PPC as the major codeline in the tree, while x86 would be among others.
Hmm... imagine if they would hire RMS!..
Less is more !
Can I register my name and sue everyone else called Cesar Cardoso? :-)
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
That was a 3d shell that ran on IRIX, a licensed version of UNIX made by SGI.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
something is called "Unix" doesn't mean that it is good. So who really cares. Unix is generic. No one goes out and buys Unix. You buy IRIX, AIX, Solaris, Linux, etc. Those trademarks are not generic and are more important.
Then again, there are people out there that go to Best Buy to "buy the internet."
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
In order to call a product 'unix' it has to be compatable with the standard. In order to prove you're compatable, you have to pay huge testing fees.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"The power of UNIX."
This appears really large on Apple's website. It doesn't say that it has the power similar to system built on UNIX, but it implies that it is UNIX with all of its powers.
SIGFAULT
We would say Eunichs of course. Though, we would have a hell of a time explaining how we get such high performance out of a machine with no balls.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
And if they sued us on sound, we'd call is Castrotti. After what could be construed as a sexist remark, I'd rather leave this thread on a high note.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Apple has kinda misled the casual free-software users. OSX is not a "new" operating system based on BSD, but a rework of NEXTstep, which happens to have been based on BSD code. There were millions of dollars spent for NEXT, so that Jobs to cover his ass and repay former NEXT investors. Apple discarded linux tie-ins with MKLinux a while back, too bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
In my mind at least, linux is unix, bsd is unix, and unix is unix. I bet it is for lots of you too. Here is why:
Say I'm facing a prompt. It could be anything:
> or
%a
or
whatever>
So what OS is is it. Let's see:
ls
Did ls work? Yes. Ah OK, unix. I know what I'm doing.
Did it not work. Sh*t. What is it. Is it Prime, VMS, AppleDos, DOS, CPM, etc etc etc.
Basically. If it has ls built in, it's unix.
For me anyway.
Can someone please explain to me how SCO, AT&T (do they still exist), and Open Group all own Unix, or what bits each is supposed to own?
Apple Music, the Beatles publishing company, no longer exists.
Then who owns the master recordings?
The Beatles music rights were purchased and AFAIK are still owned by Michael Jackson.
The rights to the musical works (embodied in sheet music) or the rights to the sound recordings (embodied in phonorecords such as tapes and CDs)?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I hope Apple wins this one, because as strange as it sounds, OSX has more UNIX pedigree than many systems eligable to use that trademark.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
While thinking about it, I would guess that Apple wants to be to able to use freely the Unix in its marketing, yet also have the freedom to build a system that is based currently on the Unix 'approach' and then branch as they feel necessary. Having to conform to Unix certification would probably prevent the system from evolving as it needs to.
What is going to be interesting is between this and the SCO vs IBM issue, Unix may just as well be in the public domain. There is so much of the basic workings that is public knowledge and has found itself into numerous computer science text books, I wonder whether anybody can lay a claim to Unix, either as intellectual property or as a trademark.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
so OpenGroup is suing apple, and they've sued a few others.
everone on the net calls OS X a unix OS. every periodical (newspaper & magazine) that's ever printed a review of OS X has noted the unixness of the OS, without ever paying homage to OpenGroup. people freely talk about the BSD's being unix. and how many times have i read that linux is a unix varient or clone?
OpenGroup has never made Public Appeals to rectify the public's misperception. Not in the way that XEROX, Kleenex, and other trademark holders have, ie, by taking out HUGE ads in said periodicals alerting the public of the misperceptions.
OpenGroup has probably blown it.
Not that arguing, debating, or even discussing this will matter or change anything but...
I've known about UNIX for about 10 years now. I've been using it in some form for about that long. (NetBSD, Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, etc.) I know of The Open Group, I've heard/read a few mentions of them before, in relation to the UNIX trademark, but I haven't a damn clue what they do or why they own that trademark.
Do they make a version of UNIX? Shit, I don't know.
Do they market UNIX? Again, dunno. I never see any "UNIX: Brought to you by The Open Group" posters, or ads or anything of the sort. To me, they don't have any public presence.
Does this make me ignorant? Maybe. I've gotten along just fine being ignorant of this group.
What does that say about their trademark? I bet if you took a poll of the slashdot community (and since slashdot has that capability, why not?) most of them would probably not know which OS is REAL UNIX, or who The Open Group is, or what they do. Furthermore, I'd guess that most of them think about UNIX the same way I do: FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X, AIX, whatever; it's all just UNIX, they basically all do the same thing. To me that's the equivalent of everyone calling bandages Band-Aids, or tissues Kleenex, etc., etc. I am not everyone else though, so perhaps I'm wrong.
Has apple misused the UNIX trademark? Perhaps. I do recall seeing some Apple ads touting that it is UNIX based, though I do not recall any stating outright that it is indeed UNIX (R). Does this mean that Apple is misusing The Open Group's trademark? Could be. But that's now up to our legal system to decide evidently, and given the actions of our legal system over the past 3 years or so, I'd say there's probably not a great outcome to this.
Gabriel Ricard
People don't naturally think of "The Open Group" when they hear the name "Unix". And people who buy products sold under the Unix name won't be disappointed to find that it wasn't made by the Open Group. They've lost control of the name and they'll never get it back. If they were allowed to sue anyone who used it, they could make it their new business model. But I think they have a chance of winning this lawsuit, since little I've said would matter in court.
UNIX === System V, the rest are all fakes.
I actually own a copy (somewhere) of a linux distribution called Linux-FT that was produced in the mid-90s by a UK company called Lasermoon. I believe that they actually paid for and got UNIX certification for their version of Linux.
The Open Group has only had the say in what was called Unix for a very short time in the history of the Unix operating system.
Of course, since their inception as the Open Software Foundation. Well before they had rights to the Unix name, their desire was to have people think of Unix based on how something worked and interoperated, not on the history of the source code behind it. If it acted like Unix, it was Unix, even if it was called OSF/1.
Holy f***, you love a Windows??? What have you been smoking???
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
Apple should have learnt that all the *nix are belong to SCO....
-----
In Soviet Russia Linus Trovalds sues SCO for GPL violations
Now I know this post will not be read by many because it's a late one in 500+ comments, and lemme preface by sayign I love Apple... but...
Why does apple license some ridiculous "technologies and patents" like 1-click shopping from Amazon and then at the same time not bother to plunk down the small amount (i'm sure it is for a company the size of apple) of change to officially get their OS UNIX certified?
I mean, it should meet the open group's standards, right? My concern is apple might not think it will meet TOG's standards and they'd rather not risk it. (eitherwise, they'd just pay for it like they did with 1-click)
But anyone with half a brain knows that most unix-LIKE systems actually have MORE powers than standard UNIX does.
Wouldn't that be "Unicies" instead of Unixes?
Or is it Uni (prounounced you-nigh)?
All these plurals confuse me.
I vote for Unixi.
anything i tell you will cloud your opinion.
"[FreeBSD] is derived from BSD UNIX, the version of UNIX developed at the University of California, Berkeley."
I think that is clear enough as to the origins of FreeBSD. This clears the origins of FreeBSD.
Although i do agree that Apple should be fair to the FreeBSD group and state something like "OS X is based on FreeBSD, which is a derivate of BSD Unix Developed by AT&T".
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
If only they read slashdot, they'd have known about this...
Fundamentally we are discussing weather or not apple has the right to claime that the base of OS X is derived from Unix. So technically, legally, and fundamentally Apple is correct in using the Unix trademark. BSD is essentially a fork of the original ATT Unix code, so what it was purged of that code the original functionality was replicated exactly. BSD basically can claim to be based on Unix but with extensions. Mac OS X is BSD with more extensions, by the way Apple does include X Windows with their systems. What they cannot say is that it is Unix because quite simply it is more and is also different. But the truth is it has Unix heritage and no additions to the existing design can change the simple fact that it is Unix based. If apple were to claim it was Unix, well that is questionable but Unix really is a generic term to most people. The name of the certification should change to UNIX03 or something to certify that a product does follow the guidelines set forth by the Open Group. This said I believe that the Open Group is providing an important service to the user because they allow the customer to know what they are buying. Standards are important but denying the right to use a generic term is not. The Apple Legal Department will win, they have deeper pockets and better lawyers than the Open Group.
Are you sure it is for OS X and not for A/UX, Apple's first foray into UNIX?
Wow, maybe the SCO Group will decide to sue APPLE aswell and make unheard of claims about APPLE using unix proprietary code, why not! And what happened with Novell after it claimed SCO didn't have a claim to wish on? And lets talk about SCO, they seem more like an upstart spoiled bunch of brats with money packed in their pockets and no place for extras! And what about OpenLINUX which was released a few years back by a rather quiet organization known as Caldera, are there ramifications for using Open LINUX these days because of the SCO Group and could they actually threaten some one using OpenLINUX? And ofcourse this reply wouldn't be complete without mentioning the Santa Cruz Organization (original SCO), They don't seem to be around anymore and all of a sudden the SCO Group just popped up over night! And didn't Linus Torvalds develop the linux kernel from the ground up? Who's after who and who's fooling who? Anyone who believes the SCO Group has an inkling of a chance should have his/hers' head examined! I think it's time to spam the SCO Group and give them an email blitz, what do you normally do with a cry baby? Put it in it's place!
CCS-2002 OX1
SCO has been getting up people's arses enough already.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
It is not just like UNIX it was derived from original ATT code modified by berkeley into the Berkeley Standard Distribution or BSD. BSD contained ATT source until the 1990's when they were sued and had to replicate the fetures of Unix with their own code. So if the original with ATT code is compatible and in always works identically to the version stripped of its ATT code. In my mind if it works the same and acts the same, the code is probably incredibly similar one is based of the other which is based off the original unix source making the design of OS X Unix-Based
As a long time user of unix and it's lookalikes...
I can tell you the exactl legal meanings of Unix(tm) and whatnot, as best I understand them, and I can tell you the history of Unix, and how the different versions developed, as best I understand them... but really, when I ask if something is Unix or not, or someone says something is Unix, I don't give two shits what the Open Group says about it. For two reasons.
Firstly , because once I had to use Unixware (It was Novell Unixware at the time). If that's real unix, I'll avoid it thanks.
Secondly, it's because unix in normal use just means "something people often call unix, regardless of whether that is correct or not." I realize that definition is cyclic, but you get the idea.
It doesn't serve any practical reason to me; I don't particularly care about the Open Group.
The leading Unix-type systems out there from my perspective are, in no particular order:
Linux
FreeBSD
Solaris
And the rest, I couldn't care less. I mean, the more the merrier, but these are the only real contenders. I'm not saying the rest are dying or anything, but these are the big players that drive the Unix world.
If the trademark goes away, that doesn't change what Unix means, it just brings the trademark situation in line with reality. The unix world defines itself.
(Please no flames about the other great unix projects.. I know that there are lots who think OpenBSD is the Final Solution for firewalls (it's not, come back when it does policy routing) and lots who woudl rightly say NetBSD is responsible for the rest staying as good as they are (and they are right)
Is this the way free software companies are going to get their money from now on?! I mean come on! There are easier ways to make a buck without getting the team of muttering lawyers involved. Frankly, if this is the way they are going to try to make money off of free software, I'd rather them charge money for the product and leave the lawyers under their bridges where they belong.
today is spelling optional day.
"I don't even have a clue what they do."
That's probably the reason they're complaining.
You mean like "echo y|format c:" or "del *.* /s"?
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
for the irony impaired: I suspect the poster was being wry.
A number of posts have mentioned that Apple is certified by the Open Group. I would think that the certification is for A/UX, not OS X.
It ran a patched version of the regular (system 7) Mac OS as a normal Unix process - so all of your classic Mac applications all ran together in one process, in one memory space, much like the regular classic Mac OS. But then you could have command-line Unix processes too. There was also Mac X, a rather nice X server, so you could run Unix X11 applications on A/UX as Unix processes, and display them in Mac X, which was a Mac OS application.
I beta tested A/UX 2.0 when I was a QA engineer at Apple in 1989 and 1990. I was testing the regular version of MacTCP, but was helping out the A/UX QA people who were testing the A/UX version of MacTCP that was really a shim over Berkeley sockets.
I believe A/UX 1.0 didn't have a Mac OS GUI at all. I think you could run a native X server on it.
Interestingly, they didn't use to have an installer of any sort. The way you obtained A/UX was to purchase it preinstalled on a SCSI hard drive. At work at Apple, we would duplicate installations by using dd to copy the whole hard drive to another drive.
I never had the sense that Apple as a whole ever took A/UX very seriously. For example, I was frustrated that A/UX wasn't really that great as a Unix platform, while not considering using it to run Mac OS.
It annoyed me no end that virtual memory page 0 in the Mac OS process wasn't unmapped - you could read and write nil pointers without error. That was done so buggy Mac applications wouldn't crash, but I felt that having an unmapped page 0 was the whole point to running a protected-mode OS on the Mac, to aid software development.
I also wanted Unix command-line tools for developing Mac OS applications. I thought it very silly to use the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop to develop Mac OS software on A/UX - it was a command-line tool in a GUI environment. I wanted to use Emacs and Unix make. I asked about this at the Apple WorldWide Developer's Conference one year and they looked at me like I had nine heads.
I think the reason Apple developed A/UX at all was to satisfy government procurement requirements that required POSIX certification - that's the same reason Windows NT has a POSIX box, not because Microsoft ever expected anyone to actually use it.
My understanding is that these days a Unix certification requires a whole bunch of things that neither Mac OS X nor any Open Source clone of Unix could satisfy - for example, Motif, and not just an open source clone like Lesstif.
Finally, the I/O architecture of Mac OS X doesn't bear much resemblance to Unix. For example, while there are special files in /dev, the files are created dynamically when hardware is discovered and deleted when the hardware is unloaded. You have to discover the filenames using a procedure based on Microsoft COM, as described in Apple's document
Accessing Hardware from Applications.
That alone makes OS X source code-incompatible with many Unix programs. It's not too hard to port, but the whole point of certification is that porting should be trivial.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
UNIX means all the operating systems certified to be Unix, even in common use of the word. This includes AIX, Solaris, IRIX and HP-UX and excludes BSD, Linux, OSX, minix and Xenix.
No go about the net looking for software ports. Some are available for UNIX ports, most frequently Solaris on sparc. In many places youd see Unix parallel to Linux as a selection, and you will rarely hear a geek say hes using Unix at home, while hes using FreeBSD or Gentoo.
Apple is in the wrong and might lose the case. OSX, like BeOS has great merits and has stood under its own name well. Theres a whole community of Darwin users, feeding on the leftovers of OSX, so OS-X is a known and used term. Forcing Unix's meaning here will result in failure, regardless of what we believe Unix SHOULD mean.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Even if Apple loses this one, they're obviously courting geeks, working on Open Darwin, OSX and now this. They realized the power of Unix and the community that has always surrounded it. They like IBM (and even Microsoft now) can see the importance of looking good to free software developers pushed by motivation.
Anyway this lawsuit is far more interesting than the other one. That one is like watchin a marble roll down a funnel, too obvious the outcome and boring. This one is about a retake on the many many lawsuits based on the Unix name.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Everyone here needs to take a pill and get a fucking clue. Apple and The Open Group included. I'll deal with each individually.
Slashdot Readers:
You guys are fucking unbelieveable. "Go Apple!" and all this shit. You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Learn something about what "UNIX" means, reflect upon it, then think about how destroying the Unix trademark might be a bad thing. For the unenlightened; You're only allowed to use the Unix trademark if you conform to the Unix specification. Why does this matter, and who cares? YOU care because you're posting to Slashdot only because of any number of specifications, a Unix spec probably being one of them. HTML being another. TCP/IP, C, Perl, SQL, 3-Phase Power at 110 or 220 volts, whatever. The point is that standards and specifications are the only way to provide reliable infrastructure. Let me bring it down to earth for your Slashdotted minds: You know that "United Linux" thing (or whatever the fuck they're calling it this week) where a bunch of distribution vendors are getting together to make a Linux specification? It's the same fucking thing as The Open Group! Supporting one but not the other is not only inconsistent, its hypocritical. The only way that Linux will ever be able to rival Microsoft is by providing a common specification for which to program and support. Similarly, this is one of the main reasons the Unix specification and it's accompanying trademark has been around for 20 years or so. This is why big iron almost always runs an implementation of the one true Unix specification. If Linux ever wants to move out of the closet and onto the production floor, it would be wise to follow suit.
So stop being such short-sighted pricks. Yes, trademarks and other IP are misused on a regular basis. However, that doesn't make them inherently evil.
The Open Group:
I can understand that you guys are upset that Apple has been using the word "UNIX" in it's marketing literature; because you probably feel like it diminishes your trademark. Realistically though, Apple has made a reasonable effort to say things like "Unix based..." and crap like that. You couldn't possibly have come to some sort of agreement? I mean, they're only part of the fucking group.
Apple:
I like what you're doing these days, but...
Stop being such hypocritical jackasses. You throw your IP around like Mike Tyson does women. Then when you step on someone's toes, instead of removing your foot; you press down harder so that you can knee them in the balls with your other leg. What an asinine thing to do. Don't forget that you own IP on standards and specs too. I mean shit, if you'd have started "The Firewire Group" as an off-shoot of the IEEE1394 working group, you'd probably be selling more iPods because I could use them as storage for my Sony DV Recorder. By the same token, if you ever want Rendevous to be at all useful to people in the real world, it has to be cross-platform. So either submit it to a standards body, or better yet, make "The Rendevous Group" and licence it out. Then, in 20 years you might understand The Open Group's position when someone else is selling "Rendevous Based" brain implants.
Okay, I think I'm done ranting now.
Remember: umount it before you fsck it.
Novell owns the patents and most (probably all) of the copyrights. Some part(s) of The SCO Group might own some copyrights and does own distribution rights. Microsoft probably have some rights to Xenix tucked away somewhere for a rainy day. The Open Group owns the name and concept (and - my goodness - hasn't Unix become a valuable property all of a sudden?). IBM have some rights "in perpetuity", Sun and Lindows have leased some rights. It's getting pretty popular...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
In several countries, as mentioned in slashdot before, you are unable to use the words "Apple" or "MacIntosh" as commercial names unless you're agriculture. Where the F* does Apple get off? Where does the Open Group get off? Apparently "Unix" is totally and unconditionally owned by SCO! Hey, wait, check that out: One of the Open Group's primary sponsors is IBM!
Round Robin Lawsuits--the way of the future!
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
While your post was funny, it brings to mind something I'd read before about Apple Records. They agreed to let Jobs et al use the apple name if they did not get into music and dilute the trademark of the Beatles-owned music company. At the time, computers and music were worlds apart. Now that I see Apple's latest endeavors, I am wondering if someone is going to throw a fit soon.
_damnit_
It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
Apple added to this a MacOS layer (all of the MacOS ran in a single A/UX process) - I was really impressed with the nifty job they did - if you look at the later A/UX releases when you walk up to a screen you have to look hard to figure out it's not a native MacOS box.
It only ran on 68k Macs, they let it die when they went to PPC - I still have a copy that boots, rumor is that there's an AUX DNS server still running somewhere in Europe. And of course I go to the A/UX user's group dinner at MacWorld every Jan.
If we need a generic term, why don't we just call it Kleenix?
I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
It's time to buy Microsoft!
:)
At least I'll be able to play games again!
Seriously though, despite buying Apple, I can see the usefulness separating official Unix from act-alikes, despite the genericness of the term. Otherwise the term can be overused.
For instance (hypothetically) Gomer, Lester, and Bobby-Sue each call their new operating systems Unix when the opperating systems don't meet Unix's technical specifications, and there's no accountability because Unix is generic, so the term becomes meaningless.
It doesn't even apply to computers anymore...
It can refer to diapers, tupperware, fire-extinguisher, modular book shelving, ball-point pens, towel drying rack, antifog thinner, a TV antennae, a massage tool, eyeglass products, security cameras, an auto-parts trading company, a rental van, a furniture store, a dance bar, a fabric store
or a Korean Metal company...
it's also a hair salon,
and finally, it's a product for fungal diseases of wheat and barley... "There are those who take risks, and those who take UNIX."
- passion
..otherwise they'd have seen why the term UN*X was used.
And that is what counts with shareholders. I personally do somehow think of OSX as a "Unix" even though it's not. If Apple doesn't defend themselves they open themselves to being sued by every 2-bit SCO-like company to walk past the store front.
First - The Open Group was created in order to manage Microsoft's " open systems activities"(ActiveX) .
"The Open Group, created this year to act as the holding company for The Open Software Foundation (OSF) and X/Open Company Ltd., provides a worldwide forum for collaborative development and other open systems activities.
The Active Group, to be formed under the auspices of The Open Group, will manage the evolution of ActiveX technologies. It will take advantage of The Open Group services in the areas of development, branding, testing and licensing. The Active Group also will provide a forum for discussion and input on the direction of ActiveX."
Microsoft will provide specifications, source code, reference implementations and validation tests for ActiveX technologies to The Open Group.
They claim to support "standards", but their standards are not W3C type stadards. The Open Group's standards involves "Boundaryless Information Flow":
Any full solution to the Boundaryless Information Flow problem needs to have a chain of technology components, preferably based on open standards, that: - Integrate data - Securely deliver data - Register data - Enable the flow of data - Develop systems that enable this flow of data - Manage systems that deliver this flow of data - Adhere to policies that govern the flow of data
They want to standardize open source to the point of defining process and architecture. Sounds to me like a ploy to curb/control the innovation that is charteristic of the open source community and at the same time distract attention from standards like W3C. Interopablity has nothing to do with the flow, but rather the format of data (apple).
This lawsuit and their copyright is nothing but mickey mouse BS - much like SCO. Is Microsoft be behind both? If they are not - they should be - because the likes of Unix and Apple could sink their boat pretty quickly once they slap palladium in their product.
Everybody just has to own a little slice of UNIX don't they?
I agree with you that it's not so easy to confuse Unix with BSD, OS X, Linux, or whatever. However, the term Unix does get thrown around quite a bit, and this is the first time I've heard of anyone getting hammered for it.
It may be too little, too late for the Open Group, if Apple can provide many examples of Unix in common (not specific to POSIX compliance) parlance.
Personally I think the timing of all this is a bit bizarre. To add to it, Apple could have avoided a lot of hassle by working with the Open Group to ensure compliance.
Hey, the economy still sucks, but at least the lawyers are busy. ;-)
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
What the OpenGroup doesn't do is support open source per se -- unlike GPL'ed code, you can be OpenGroup certified and still be closed source. Bad bad OpenGroup, they're not RMS-correct.
OpenGroup no support Open Source - check
OpenGroup not RMS-correct - check
So when did the APSL, MPL, and many other Open Source licences become RMS-blessed? And, when did it become OK to check GPLed code into a BSD based project?
Open Source != GPL. GPL is Open Source, but so is BSD and any BSD licenced code will tell you that the GPL is un-acceptable and not useful.
will name my daughter sue, if i ever have one. That way the boys will stay away once she is older.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
A bird says that would make the year about 1993. It is entirely too bad. The wise bird tells me imperative for growth history is.
In 1987 a few big name companies, DEC, HP, IBM started up OSF because of concern of royalties and control of ATT (basically feeding control back to the small guys ... err IBM is not that small, whatever) who was broken up in 1984 by the US government for their monopolistic nature on the market place. It was definitely an interesting predicament for ATT. Read up on that. Anyway, OSF gave way to all the things you know about then, POSIX rewrite OSF/2, windowing system X11, the GUI MOTIF, distributed computing (DCE), distributed management (DME).
ATT and Sun were expected to join I guess, but joined another team to create the Archer group which I might have to do a google search as I forget what has come of them.
Anyway other shit happened during this time, mostly Unix vendor wars and such and Linux in 1991.
In 1993, ATT sold Unix labs and rights to Novell. Novell knew it wouldn't fare well holding onto the rights when so much force was against them via Open philosophies that they gave the rights of Unix to X/Open. Novell sold their Unix systems (code, whatever) to SCO. In 1996, or near so, OSF and X/Open merged to become The Open Group. The Open Group sets compatibility up, working with IEEE in creating the POSIX standards. The Open Group is all about working in many environments, which was their prime focus of the company during the "unix wars" in the 80s. Unix in english is The Open Group, and in practice, IBM, Linux, OSX, etc.
"Do they make a version of UNIX? Shit, I don't know."
Not exactly. I'm sure you can figure it out now though.
And yeah, I totally think that Unix could be generic now. It is kinda stupid to make a point of all this, but sometimes we need to break from our coding and learn from the past.
I hope my bird has proved informational...
i just like to read
ps. i forgot that after I composed i did a search on google for "opengroup history" and found a doc on the unix.org website. I guess it would have been easier to reference that first of all, but I am a lonely geek who found solace in posting this message, even though it is near impossible it will even see the light of day given it is under anonymous posting and several threads deep
I'll scour back under my rock now, thanks for listening.
"He's an attorney! Burn him!"
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Man... think before you speak.
Exclude me from this thread, then take the mean average slashID of the responders to your blurt. I mean, we've got some oldies but goodies weighing in here, and they aren't agreeing with you.
Honestly, I'm absolutely floored at the number of people in the larger thread weighing in for Apple and for dilution or complete dissolution of OG's influence in the community. OG is about standards and compatibility. A lot of your newly-converted Free Software lovers don't care that much about it, but it is because they take it for granted. The entire community has evolved in an atmosphere that not only encourages standards compliance but mandates it.
Even if Apple had a point that the UNIX trademark had been nullified (which it surely does not!), advocating the abolition of OG's authority in this arena is a Bad Thing. Sure, the nouveau-freebie generation doesn't understand the need for standards in this arena, and they don't want to be encumbered by that need. But that doesn't mean the need isn't there. If you don't want to be certified UNIX standards compliant, then don't bother. But don't use the UNIX compliance trademark if you aren't. It's really much more simple than everyone is trying to make it. And on this one, Apple is dead-to-rights in the wrong.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
Try "rmdir /s /q \" on Windows NT and derivatives, or "deltree /y \" on Windows 9x.
(of course there is no cross-Windows-platform way to do it)
Considering the above, Apple is clearly in the wrong. To put it another way, a street peddler who sells $25 "Rolex" watches could argue that the Rolex name has become generic, but a $25 watch is going to work like a $25 watch no matter what is written on it.
Apple once developed and marketed something call AU/X. It was, if I remember correctly, a System V style Unix that almost no one liked. They also resold AIX on one of their server products c. 1995 or so. The reference you found may not be to OS X.
Please provide appropriate Google queries whose results are pages that describe the current situation regarding the ownership of publishing rights and master rights to songs written and performed by the Beatles.
unix doesn't stand for anything, it's just that The Creator (Ken Thompson IIRC?) was "having a bit too much fun with the new smallcaps printer function"
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Yeah, right, UNIX is trademarked. Well, there are some : Other Unix (from Dennis Ritchie Home Page )
"I mean, it should meet the open group's standards, right? My concern is apple might not think it will meet TOG's standards and they'd rather not risk it."
Actually, I would expect that they do not meet the open groups specifications. OS X is different enough that they are bound to have problems, and having to solve the technical problems is almost certainly prohibitively expensive.
sigs are a waste of space
And now, premium grade a prime bullshit.
Please, shut the fuck up.
What you SHOULD know is that there's a freely available unix standards document (the Single Unix Specification version 3) that the Open Group publishes. If you want to make your code portable to all Unices, using the Single Unix Specification instead of your systems's man pages is a good idea. The specification is basically a set of man pages that describes only the standard features. Even though BSDs and Linux don't follow the standard exactly, their deviations are very minor, and usually obscure.
The parent blank message is just plain funny. It's a Troll, sure, but a gifted one at that. It overturns the whole socialist paradigm presumed by staunch supporters of free Unices.
Is Linux a good idea? Absolutely. But it shouldn't mean that mean the /. crowd can no longer see Beavis-and-Butthead type humor when it pops up.
Yeah, I'm too cowardly to burn karma on this one, so here's â a grain of salt.
As other posters have said, Unix is a general, genetic term that can (and should) be applied to a UNIX-like operating system such as OS X or FreeBSD.
UNIX is a trademark, and as such is protected - if you specify that your technology is built on UNIX (not Unix) then it must be UNIX certified.
However, this is not Apples intention - they are using "Unix" - the generic term to describe that OS X has its roots in Unix like operating systems, NOT UNIX itself (otherwise SCO would be suing them also!)
"No one can be told what Unix is, you have to experience it for yourself."
GN was a gopher server officially maintained until version 2.25 or 2.24, when it became the WN server. try teoma`ing for gn-2.24
or just look for it in freshmeat.net
so GNU`s not Unix all comes down to beeing a gopher server these days....
rc
Hmmm.
Ask your average punter about 'HTML', and they'll tell you it's something to do with Internet Explorer.
Should 'HTML' become a generic description for a class of HTML-like markup languages: W3C-HTML, MS-HTML, Mozilla-HTML, etc.?
I sure hope not.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
You shall be flattened Waffle Iron.
OG owns the name but not the stuff... SCO owns the stuff but not the name... Apple can't call it by its name but can use the stuff... AH! Yes! Mr. Carroll, care to comment?:
Alice could only look puzzled: she was thinking of the pudding.
`You are sad,' the Knight said in an anxious tone: `let me sing you a song to comfort you.'
`Is it very long?' Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
`It's long,' said the Knight, `but it's very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it -- either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else --'
`Or else what?' said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
`Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called "Haddocks' Eyes".'
`Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel interested.
`No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed. `That's what the name is called. The name really is "The Aged Aged Man".'
`Then I ought to have said "That's what the song is called"?' Alice corrected herself.
`No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called "Ways and Means": but that's only what it's called, you know!'
`Well, what is the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
`I was coming to that,' the Knight said. `The song really is "A-sitting On a Gate": and the tune's my own invention.'
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
echo y|format c:
del *.* /s (from the root of the drive)
rm -rf / tmp/* (or one that bit me badly many moons ago when I wanted to delete all the dotfiles/directories in root's home directory, "rm -rf .*").
Unix, by it's nature, makes it *very* easy to shoot yourself in the foot. This is, IMHO, one thing that separates it from more "consumer" or "end-user" oriented OSes.
Or it could be that, *shock*, some words have multiple meanings?!?!
Let them invent their own words.
They don't need to, "free" and "open" already mean what they intend to get across, if people are too stupid to understand the meanings, then said people have bigger problems than just understanding what FOSS software is. Ie. they need to go back to school, or at least look at a fucking dictionary once in a while.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
if you go at http:\\www.opengroup.org on the left hand side of the page there is a little box that displays their sponsors. apple is not dipslayed as a sponsor !!! draw your own conclusions!!
Actually, punk, I think I said the majority opinion overall tended to be wrong in this instance.
./, I have to wonder why you make it over to harass me every time I post. Do you feel it is your civic duty? If so, please consider time served as having paid off any debt you might owe society. You are now and hereby absolved and may end your hopeless life any time you choose.
Can't even RTFC... but what the hell -- any chance to malign me is worth it.
BTW -- I'll consider the opinions of those showing low IDs over those showing low IQs any day. If you think so lowly of the ol'
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
here's the contact information for the Open Group...
http://www.opengroup.org/contacts/
Please remember Linux(tm) is a trademark of Linus Torvalds and properly indicate it when talking about Linux(tm) or he might be interested in sueing you.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
A lot of the discussion here has been about whether UNIX(r) has become generic, or not.
As I see it it can be both -- I think the specification that defines a UNIX(r) (I can't remember what it was, sorry) is important for compliance. However, I also think that UNIX(r)-like accounts for a great deal.
Would it not be possible to form a new standard -- I'm not good with names, but how about, say UNIX and TrueUNIX(r); where UNIX stands for UNIX(r)-like and TrueUNIX(r) would be the UNIX(r) of today (certified based on stringent specification).
This sounds complicated, but I guess all this IP stuff is...
wear your UNIX DIAPERS with pride while listening to music through your UNIX SOUND SYSTEM and rub on some of that GEL-UNIX to prepare for the xray.
Trademark Electronic Search System
my sig
A longstanding failure to vigorously ensure that those third-party products only cover licensed Unices or otherwise make clear that unlicensed products are not Unix makes the Open Group's case a tough one to win. Just like asprin, kerosene and the thermos, Unix has arguably long been a generic term for a specific class of operating systems.
To put it another way, when you hear that an OS is Unix, do you immediately think, "Ah-hah, it's passed the UNIX 93, 95, 98 or Base conformance criteria administered by the Open Group! I can now use the T_TCO_TRANSFAILPROB QoS flag without fear!"
In any case, nothing can be more ironic than the X/Open version of the famous license plate: "Live Free Or Die: UNIX. (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.)"
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
Here's a hint: don't EVER use the -f flag without re-reading the line again (unless, of course, you're really trying to 'rm -rf /') - the purpose of the -f flag is the same purpose as the "Are you sure" messages in WinDOS, except it's easier to script, and shouldn't be for everyday use.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
...but "Open Group" seems to me like a misnomer.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
NPTL is in Red Hat 9. Linux has POSIX threading now.
Actualy, Rendezvous (or rather, Zero Conf) is open sourced already.
on a modern NextStep. It isn't FreeBSD in its entirety.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
What exactly can you get away with then? Calling something Unixy, or Unix-like?
It would be hard to described the behavior/structure of an OS as similar to Unix if you can't use the word Unix. I think that OSX's base is more Unixy than Linuxy... but somehow that term doesn't sound very professional anyhow.
Save yourself some headaches and take a look at the "A/UX FAQ" before you buy or download A/UX...
:(
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aux-faq/
A/UX won't run on the 840AV.
[My apologies if this is a dupe. Our corporate internet activity was sporadic today, and my interrupted searches were coming up empty.]
My understanding of trademark law is that the onus is on the trademark holder to aggressively protect their registered marks against misuse and dilution.*
Perhaps this is all that is happening here. I'm sure TOG found some wording or statement by Apple that could be seen as trademark miuse, and were forced to protect their property.
I may not agree with all the uses of trademark law, but TOG may be forced to challenge many uses of "UNIX" just because they have to. That being said, Apple has been pretty reasonable in their use of phrases like "UNIX-based" and "BSD UNIX implementation"; I'm guessing there were enough minor "violations" according to trademark law that TOG needed to act.
* IANAL, but we had a trademark and patent laywer dude come around to our shop to give us a seminar a few weeks back. So now I'm a expert.
-- clvrmnky
But not unless the Bible is amended to say that Adam took a byte of the Apple.
Apple went to the Open Group shortly after OS X was released and got proper authorization to use the UNIX tradename. This is just complete bullshit and Slashdot bought it hook line and sinker. Open your fucking eyes jackasses.
How about: GPWNUBINUAAL or "GNU Previously Was Not Unix But Is Now Unix After Apple's Lawsuit"
That'd be a great distro!
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Do any of them specify exactly which flavor of UNIX they want you to know? My goodness, UNIX IS probably one of the most generic computing terms out there. Even Windows has more distinction when people are looking for WinNT or WinXP experts. And yet they're going after Apple...
I can't help but wonder why. What is the REAL motive...?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
How about GNNU = Gnu is Not Not Unix
Wouldn't it be called Eunuchs? : )
Like say, apple?
You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
:) )
(no one's used it yet?)
(ya'll are getting old
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Change GNU/Linux to GNU/nix, or GNU/Unnix, or, GNU/GNOT*NIX, or GNU/GNOS (generic network operating system), or GNU/NICES (network information control/exchange services), or GNU/SOX (Gnu/Systems Operating eXecutive), and for the slightly cynical, GNU/Systems Unix-like eXecutive (GNU/SUX).
Names convey adequate Unix tie and retains essential GNU-ness, plus a dose of cute self-deprecating humor. Innocuousness and a basic societal benefit motif should be preserved. Avoids all the legal hassles. These names should make it seem extreme and silly for corporations to sue or attack free software groups or identify as threats. Who would approve of attacking Tux, the cute penguin, or other cute cuddly critter-based free software products? The BSD Demon is out-there enough to indicate non-mainstream.
Still thinking? Need a FSF/ix? Sounds like some are ready for GNU/Portable Interative Standard System Operating System - Official Release, er, GNU/PISSOSOff Release.
I suspect we'll leave unconsidered: GNU/General Operating and Tertiary Services Executive (GNU/GOATSE).
Bill Wyman (Rolling Stones) sues Bill Wyman (writer) -i t_d etail.asp?stupid_ID=148
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsu
Can anyone else see the gag-reflex here? People are tired of all this money clubbing that's been going on.
Most of the people here are all for the stripping of big corporation's trademarks, and dropping them back off in the public domain.
It's wrong, and a few people here are trying to speak some common sense into this situation. In any case Stallman would be proud.
How sad to have a brain and not use it. That is not what your link says at all. The Open Group was a pre-existing company chosen by Microsoft to manage some aspect of ActiveX(tm):
And before you post, you brainless prat: no, X/Open had nothing to do with ActiveX.
I would argue that "Unix" has been commonly used as a generic term for over a decade. When I "learned Unix", I did it on SunOS 4.x machines, back when then-current versions of SunOS ran on machines with 68000-series processors (instead of SPARCs). And while SunOS 4 was a hybrid of System V and BSD, it was predominantly BSD. In those days and for many years after that, Sun machines and SunOS 4 (and later SunOS 5) were clearly acknowledged as the leading Unix platform.
So, people, magazines, Usenet postings, etc. all very commonly said things like "Sun is the biggest of the Unix vendors" even though their product was more BSD than anything else. Few people had a problem with that usage, so I have to conclude that it's a generic term and has been for a while.
I'm still not interested in running any Apple Unix on any kind of big server, though...
Not true at all! /y flag suppresses warnings. /y dirname deletes the directory "dirname".
/y", without specifying a directory, it defaults to the current working directory!!!
/y .
/y %VAR%
The "deltree" command, standard with Windows 9x, deletes a tree of directories. The
So, deltree
Now, you might think that this "consumer oriented OS" guards you against mistakes. Not so.
When you just type "deltree
Open a command prompt and type deltree
Gone is your entire system!!
The current working directory when opening a command prompt is (by default) the Windows directory.
Where in the above do you find any guarding agains accidental mis-typing?
As an actual fact, this happened to me when there was a line like:
deltree
in a login script. The %VAR% was supposed to contain a directory name to clean out.
For some reason it was sometimes empty, and in that case the entire C:\Windows directory on the victim's system was erased, less some dlls that were open at that time and could not be deleted.
(yet another end-user unfriendly property of Windows, the one that makes it require so many reboots)
If Unix becomes generic, that does NOT mean you can call any old thing UNIX.
Take ASPIRIN, which is generic. If a company calls some OTHER drug ASPIRIN, then that would be FRAUD. Rather, it simply means that if you manufacture and sell a drug that is Acetylsalicitic acid (or whatever it is) THEN you can call that drug "Aspirin."
the main mission of the open group is to enforce unix standards. sure they want money for liscencing, if you owned "unix", wouldnt you? basically theyre complaining because you cant call somthing unix unless it gets checked and approved, just like you cant call something w3c valid unless you check it with them. the reason why the liscensing costs so much is because the actual process to verify it meets the standards is expensive in itself.
;P
sure, i guess unix is a general term, and legally oses like bsd can call themselves "unix-based" and not "unix"
and for further clarification.. linux is NOT unix, just like GNU is NOT unix
One thing I still do not know is the $110,000 fee a one-time only fee or is it only for the version they certify? If it is only for a particular version then it is worthless. My guess is that TOG is not going to risk a court case because they could lose, instead they will settle with Apple to cert MacOS for much much less moola.
I read somewhere that if company A pays to license some IP from company B, that can later be used as evidence that the IP is owned by company B. (Example: Microsoft licensing UNIX IP from SCO is seen as evidence against IBM in SCO's suit against IBM) Analagously, paying up for use of this trademark may have legal ramifications down the road, mightn't it?
http://www.fags.org/fags/aux-fag/
While potential competition in the *nix "community" ties itself in legal knots....
SCO? I sincerely hope not. Is unix a trade name or trademarked? Can I go out and buy a product called "Unix"? Where do they sell this Unix? I dont think the open group has a leg to stand on here.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Clue 2: Yes implying long-standing respected organizations are somehow suspect because you've never heard of them is so fantastically asinine it does deserve open derision.
Clue 3: That you go on to suggest they may be "posers" when it's you talking out his, ass, well, that's just too rich.
So yeah, you got trashed. And you deserved it. The adult thing to do would be to acknowledge such, learn from it, not follow up with a lame attempt to justify one's public embarrassment. Apparently too much to expect...
Actually that's not "first of all" and then what exactly was your "purpose"?To try and impress the /. folks? Spread a little hysteria? Misinformation?
What possible positive purpose could you have intended with your post? You rush to submit without so much as looking up The Open Group, you imply they might be part of some nefarious plot, you then go and suggest they might be somehow at odds with FSF...
Well, news for ya kid: Last time I checked the two organizations were cordial with each-other, had no outstanding issues either was beefing about.
Ya see, that's the danger of bullshitting in public: Every so often you get caught by folks who really do know the score.
In this case I know TOG & I know FSF. I interviewed at TOG years ago, keep in touch with buddies there, have known any number of FSF staffers over the years, been at industry events and private parties with folks from both organizations. Heck, I just realized I've dated Sr. folks from both organizations.
So yeah, when you start spreading your bullshit around I do find it offensive. There's enough crap in this world without little grandstanders like you making more up. Take the lesson.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Apple doesn't say that OSX is UNIX. It says that it's "UNIX-based" and has a bunch of material on the Apple site that says this. The legal question, a matter of law for a court to decide, is whether that is a use of UNIX that would require the certification process. I doubt it, since every variant - Linux, et al - is marketed as a UNIX-variant. To argue that UNIX is generic is much harder - and I think a loser - because everyone knows that UNIX refers to a specific operating system of which there are variants. The classic generic cases are items like Kleenex, which was threatened by its success at becoming so well known people asked for kleenex (small k) when they were using Puff's or some other brand. Now the ads all refer to Kleenex brand tissues as protection.
There are probably a lot of cogent arguments for the Open Group's here, and the law may even be on their side, but to be consistent I've got to go with Apple this time. I really hate that. My negative feelings towards Apple are probably something I share with some of the Open Group board. But its time for sanity to reign again. For almost two centuries trademark, patent and copyright had meaning. In the last two decades the courts and just about everyone else seem to get amnesia every couple of years and what was either prior art or public domain becomes the subject of some desperate or greedy (or both) company's attempt to hijack the market. Let's face it UNIX (or Unix) is about as generic as Cola (not Coke, although I'd love to argue that one too). Given that the U.S. poured billions into IT over the last 30 years, including projects that developed UNIX way beyond its Bell Labs roots (e.g., BSD), it's ridiculous that anyone thinks they can restrict rights to the name -- let alone the technology it represents. Time for such things to be given the free (as in beer) status in law that they already have in fact.
As far as I can see, the Unix trademark is better enforced than such common trademarks as "Kleenex" and "Xerox", and there's no sign that they're in trouble.
Is that why they buy national full-page ads with the phrase, "you can make a copy on a copier, but you can't xerox a xerox on a xerox?" Xerox has been plagued with risks of genericide for years. The only thing that changed that issue was their disasterous market share losses in the 90s. They are no longer the powerhouse they once were, so they have lost the mindshare they once held. However,in their heyday, they were at great risk.
Singer lost their marks during their heyday, as everybody then wanted to sew on a "singer." Amusingly, they ultimately regained their mark once the phrase flowed out of genericity.
Perhaps that's all there is to the Open Group/Apple lawsuit -- OG making noise so they can continue to claim that "Unix" is not generic.
If I was Bill, and as long as I could forget my other woes, I'd be LMAO even (or especially) if I hadn't had a hand in starting it. My only worry would be how to inject Microsoft's name, with a positive spin on it of course, into this flood of conversation. Start threatening people for not having Xenix licences? Naw, too negative. Give SCO another $X0,000,000.00? Naw, too obvious. I know! We'll pay the Open Group $X0,000,000.00 to certify SFU as being "Unix" - another demonstration of our support for "IP"!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
fscking os...!
(EQL
(/(*(GNUS)(NOT)(UNIX))
(UNIX))
((GNUS)(NOT)))
Whats worse is all the fscking ().
i wonder what richard stallman was thinking when he sold his undershorts to the paranthetical device dept.
I'm pretty sure that the same company that supplied the basic POSIX tools for Microsoft also provides POSIX tools for a great many other platforms, as well.
Microsoft cut a deal with this company to provide around 20 well-known POSIX tools (ls, tr, cat, tail, ...) as part of the Windows server install. Customers can upgrade to the full supported package of POSIX tools and cross-platform bits and pieces for a fee.
Try strings ls.exe (or ident ls.exe if you have that magic available to you) and compare/contrast with the same executables on OS/390 or some big HP iron.
A variety of these tools have been available for the most common and obscure platforms for years.
-- clvrmnky
BTW If you now think what I'm saying is contradictive to my notions to the OS 9 issue, let me explain that Apple have simply changed the naming scheme from
Mac OS {version number}
to
Mac OS X {version number}
Might be clumsy, but that how it is.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
You notice shit that doesnt matter, and miss shit that does.
You are a poser and a fraud, as well. Enjoy.
Thank you all for pointing out the details of Apple's standards activities. I'm much better educated for it, without having to exact the effort to check the facts myself.(/SINCERITY)
The reason I didn't check them is because they are completely tertiary to the point. Perhaps I should have written more hypothetically, but I figured that might have been evident when I mentioned brain implants.
Do any of you have friends (insert obligatory slashdot joke here) that can only respond to one point of a multi-facted email or letter? I do, and I'm reminded of them here. For those who have trouble following, I'll condense my post into a list of points: (with bullets!)
- Standards and specifications are good.
- The Open Group should stop being IP nazis.
- Notwithstanding, Apple are hypocritical assholes for wanting to invalidate the Unix trademark and consequently the specification.
If you will, allow me to clarify a few things. Unfortunately, I didn't state explcitly that whether the standards are, free, open, closed or proprietary, I don't care. When it comes to standards I care about two things:- The quality of the spec, or the implementation of the standard.
- The documentation of said standard or spec.
I apologize to the IP bigots who had to waste their time screaming, "WHAT ABOUT OPEN STANDARDS!?!?" Your cause was never meant to be a part of this discussion. But since you brought it up, I might say a few things. As I mentioned before, IP isn't inherently evil. It just seems that way because it is often times wielded for the wrong reasons. Just as the GPL is a copyright licence, IP can often times work in your favor. The trick is to leverage it effectively and not get caught up in utopian visions of software without ownership. Please, allow me to get all Nash-like on you: What's best for both the group and the individual is what's best for both. Now some Darwinism as paraphrased from Ghost in the Shell: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. That is to say homogeneous groups or individuals are more susceptible to failure than a heterogenous group. Applied the world of IP the solution for success becomes quite clear: One must use IP to benefit not only one's self, but others to a proportionate degree. By the same token, if one behaves with only the group in mind; failure is inevitable, as the individual has not paid enough attention to it's own needs to remain viable. I await the responses of both your neighbourhood PHB and Mr. Stallman.Getting back to the point, I think I just gave a good reason why The Open Group might be best to stop hoarding their IP. ;)
As it relates to Apple, whatever they might be doing elsewhere is irrelevant. Similarly, the hypocritical bit is self-evident. What matters is that they are intent on destroying the IP of others for no one's benefit but their own. How would your life, or the life of any given slashdotter improve without a Unix trademark? It wouldn't. In fact, it might get irrevocably worse. This is perhaps the fault of The Open Group, because it seems to me that the Unix specification means very little without the Unix trademark; and vice-versa. I simply don't see the benefit of everyone and his dog being able to call their software "Unix". I do however, see a problem with the loss of the definition of exactly what is Unix and what isn't. Yes, I'm aware that they'd probably just come up with another name/trademark; But that then begs the question, "Why bother?"
Remember: umount it before you fsck it.
It's better to allow the user to shoot themselves in the foot than never run at all.
Um, I don't think that's true. There are still anti-fraud laws.
I mean you can't buy a box of cigars and market them as a "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU".
There are still deceptive advertising laws and fraud laws. Yes, if goes generic, there will be some bad usage of "UNIX" that makes our heads hurt, but your post is highly misleading. If it goes generic, Apple will claim it is generic for an OS with a certain set of features AND/OR an operating system with a certain code-base heritage. I was listening with glee just this week about an FTC lawsuit against a deceptive advertiser. They are seizing all his personal assets, etc...
Looks like slashdot will have to change the unix topic tagged along with Mac stories :)
I'd say Apple has a solid strategy going for this suit.
Basically their position is: The OpenGroup can leave us (apple) alone and drop their suit or risk their entire companies future in our (apple) counter suit.
Let's face it - if Apple wins there is no reason for any of the OpenGroup clients to pay them another penny - resulting in the death of the OpenGroup. Apple has upped the ante on these folks. Where others were willing just to pay the 100-grand so as not to be bothered with them, Apple is poised to crush the OpenGroup to make sure they never bother anyone again.
I'd say the OpenGroup needs to rethink their litigiousness concerning their trademark; they would have been better off letting this one go. The only winners here are the lawyers, who will get rich regardless of the outcome and that's just the way lawyers like it.
First one in months! Then someone had to ruin it by modding it back up again... the account's nett "gain" (smack into that cap again) for today was 4 points. IMESHO, SlashDot should keep true tally but have an "effective" karma cap of 50 + log.e(karma-50). So real 100 == effective 54, 1000 == 57, 10000 == 59. That keeps some sport in it but doesn't give rabble rousers like me any spectacular advantages.
Can I have my -1, Offtopic now please? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
the point of my post, which did, by the way, start of saying I know what the difference is. My point is:
... my point is that as a real unix professional, it DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I don't care at all whether you call it unix or unix like, the definition serves no useful purpose to me. Different Unix(tm) systems are slightly different, as is linux, the BSDs, etc.. it's an irrelevant distinction for all practical purposes.
I KNOW what the OPEN GROUP says is unix, and says is not, and I know that Solaris is UNIX(tm) and that Linux is just "unix-like"
is that those UNIX standards are largely useless. Whether i pick a product or not has nothing to do with whether it's called UNIX or not. Whatever the set of criteria the open group came up with doesn't matter to me.
My point is that, other than defining unix as "whatever the Open Group says is unix" and some historical codebase, what's the benefit to me of having them certify it? NOthing, because it doesn't matter to me.
We are discussing whether the trademark has any use anymore, not whether there is a valid case against Apple. If the trademark stands, the case may be valid... obviously.
As a unix professional of 10+ years, my opinion is I don't really care if you call it Unix or not, it in no way affects my purchasing decisions. In fact, I see it in a negative light; the fact that everyone calls linux unix bolsters the unix world, and the Open Group wants to cash in on that popuplarity, even though the products with their own certification didn't earn it.
You people need to think a bit more.
If the trademark gets thrown out then UNIX means nothing. No one can enforce what a UNIX system is, and is not.
This is not a good thing. It will just confuse the marketplace.
Dan
That would be somewhat ironic, considering the RMS and/or FSF (can't remember which) boycott of Apple...
Bill Wyman (Rolling Stones) sues Bill Wyman (writer) -i t_d etail.asp?stupid_ID=148
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsu
What I can say? Damn lawyers!
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)