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."
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
Trademarks are registered for different categories of trade. i.e. I can trademark Apple as a new type of car and this is just fine. I could also create a new fruit drink called Unix or a toilet papaer brand called SCO with no trademark problems.
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.
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.
Xerox retains its trademark for photocopiers, and defends it meticulously. You're thinking of Cellophane and Aspirin, which did lose their traademarks years ago.
sulli
RTFJ.
OSX is NOT UNIX. It is a proprietary OS, which has some Unix-like properties but is not UNIX by any means. Besides, FreeBSD does not claim it is UNIX, just that it's derived from one.
FYI: Mac OS X's core (darwin) is dirrived from FreeBSD therefore, it must be direived from a UNIX.
for a more visual look at it, see the Unix timeline. on the timeline you can trace Mac OS X all the way back to the 1st AT&T release of UNICS. (not a typo)
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Apple's labeling of Darwin as "Unix" is neither:
misleads consumers.
creates confusion with other products
I have to disagree with you. Although I think Apple has a fabulous product, it clearly is not "Unix". Products that are "Unix" pretty much have one of two characteristics:
1. Built from a cut of the original Unix code base.
2. Pass the Single Unix Specification (1170) or a newer incarnation.
As far as I know, MacOS X qualifies under neither standard.
MacOS X is a great product, but it is clearly "Unix like" as opposed to A/UX, Apple's System V R2.2 Unix with BSD extensions, may it rest is peace.
Mislabeling MacOS X, or any other operating system, as Unix clearly confuses issues, such as how easy it will be to move applications from one platform to another, and the way the operating system behaves.
Commercial "Unix" has by and large been System V since the 80s. The BSD derivatives (like MacOS X) are at a disadvantage in meeting the current Single Unix Specification given the divergence between BSD and SysV. This issue goes back for quite a ways since the power over the licensing of the Unix code and the Unix name have followed the System V code, not BSD.
The current definition of Unix is in a sense both more strict and more flexible. Since a cut of the Unix source originating from AT&T is no longer necessary, more operating systems could qualify as "Unix", but the Single Unix Specification is fairly detailed so it wouldn't be trivial to pass the test. The Single Unix Specification has been a good thing since it is working to make the commercial System V unixes (AIX, HP/UX, Solaris, Digital Unix, etc.) more compatible.
As far as qualifying for the "Unix" label goes, Linux is considerably better off from a starting position if Linus wanted it to be "Unix". Unfortunately for Linux, Linus believes that certain POSIX standards are stupid and doesn't feel bound to stay compatible.
Although the standards for Unix are clearly defined and available, GNU, the Linux community, and the BSDs often feel no need to converge on the standard. To my mind a fair amount of the work of the Linux Standards Base is pointless. The Linux community could just adopt the 1170 specifications, but instead, like so many things, the Linux community is rolling its own instead of going with an established standard when one exists.
There is a trade-off between standards and massive innovation. Linux, *BSD, and MacOS are nothing if not innovative. But if the builders of these systems don't want to adhere existing standards then they shouldn't be whining when they are properly referred to as "Unix like" instead of Unix.
Frankly, if being called Unix is important to the "Unix like" communities, then they should consider doing what Sun does with Solaris. The behavior of a Sun in userland is highly variable depending upon your path. It can behave with: traditional Sun SystemV behavior, BSD behavior, GNU behavior, or POSIX/1170 behavior.
Frankly, I think it would be a hoot if Apple dusted off the source code for A/UX and layered appropriate parts of it on top of MacOS X.
New and improved MacOS X!! Now with improved POSIX & System V personalities!!