Re: [TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

In message: <oprys0axwyceuadk(a)smtp.borf.com> Brantley Coile <bwc(a)coraid.com> writes: : On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:17:25 -0700 (MST), M. Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> : wrote: : > In message: <oprysw7gl4ceuadk(a)smtp.borf.com> : > Brantley Coile <bwc(a)coraid.com> writes: : > : > 8. 32I is the interim name. I would have preferred Unix version 7, : > but : > : > can't for obvious trademark reasons. : > : : I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively : > : disassociate a mark after the fact. If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS : > Unix : 32v. : > : I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue : > : that it's not Unix 32V anymore. : > : > Just because you have a piece of code that was marketed under : > tradename Foo(R) doesn't mean that you have the right to use that : > trade name to market the code. I'd steer clear of the Unix name : > unless you want the Open Group to contact you (and they will when they : > find out about your use). While the Open Group is fairly easy to work : > with, there are a number of non-negotiable uses of the word Unix that : > they will not permit. This is one of them. : > : > Warner : > : : : I'm no lawyer but I find it hard to believe that if I have a DEC : computer and I refurbish it and give it away that Intel, or HP, or : whoever wound up with the trademark can say anything about it. If you have modified it, creating some mutant thing, they likely can. Also, there's a fundamental difference between reselling hardware, and taking software, hacking it and selling it under a name that is active, even if this software is an earlier version of that name. : There is a huge difference between marketing a product using : a name and a distribution for something that is called UNIX : in the document giving premission to distribute it. It was : and is UNIX. Let's call it UNIX. Can Ken and Dennis be sued : for saying they invented UNIX? But since they Ken and Dennis, by way of their former employers, have sold the rights to the name Unix. You are setting yourself up for a call from the Open Group. I've had to field a couple of those calls from the Open Group while on FreeBSD core. The provenance of the code is not relevant: The Open Group has the the rights to the name Unix, and you must pass a fairly extensive compatibility test before you are allowed to use it. FreeBSD can't even say it is Unix. It can only say that it is Unix like. It is a lot closer to passing all the Unix branding tests than V32. : One part of the law suit against BSDI was that they said IT'S UNIX. : 1-800-its-unix, and it wasn't, it was BSD. This is UNIX. Yes. BSDi lost that part of the lawsuit. If you want to set yourself up for legal problems, go for it. I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to deal with IP lawyers while being on FreeBSD core team and other places enough to know a problem area when I see it. Warner