18 Nov
2003
18 Nov
'03
4:48 a.m.
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.
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?
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.
Brantley