[buug] UNIX (R), etc.

[Tony Godshall]

[MP wrote]
> Once upon a time, what was UNIX(TM)/(R) was a particular set of code, or
> authorized derivative code.  That was quite a while ago.  One of the
> (relatively) good things that came out of the "UNIX Wars" was that UNIX
> (R) is not dependent upon a particular source code set or derivation
> thereof, but rather conformance to specifications and, for
> the right to carry the UNIX(R) registered trademark, passage of
> certification tests (submission to the tests for certification and
> branding is not free, though the standards upon which the tests are
> based are available for free (as in beer, not freedom)).

Thanks for the clarification, Michael.  Do I hear a wikipedia edit
coming on?  This entry could be clarified a bit...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

[RM wrote]
> ...  It's really nostalgic to see anyone raising the hoary "BSD
> isn't actually Unix", "Linux isn't actually Unix", etc., bits, because
> didn't everyone who cared die off by the early 1990s?

Heh.  Thanks, William!  (and it's one thing to care (I don't) and
another to try to help out a person who seems to ("Unix (not Linux)").
 By the way, how old are you, William?

> And, before anyone goes there, Open Group may own the trademark (that
> nobody really gives a damn about, any more), and the certification mark,
> but I'm not wielding either one in commerce, so they can bite me.  ;->

Heh heh.  Quite.