UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

I was just reading https://www.unix.com/answers-to-frequently-asked-questions/13306-what-unix-linux-unix-system.html?s= and I was confused by something.

Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX aren't licensing the Unix name?

So then, is only SCO paying to use the Unix name?

SCO own's the source code to Unix, while Open Group owns the name... so then is Solaris source code licensed from SCO? Or is it totally proprietary? My understanding of AIX is that it was licensed from SCO's Unix-code, however given their claim that it was a one time fee perpetual license and cannot be revoked, did Sun, and HP also pay SCO at one time for the code? Or did they obtain it like BSD did through the origina code when ATT couldn't be in the computer biz?

I'm a bit confused now.

Welcome to the club! The legal issues are confusing and only army of lawyers could disentangle it.

Aspirin is a trademark of the Bayer company in most of the world, but they lost trademark status in the US. If you buy a bottle of non-Bayer aspirin in the US and cross the border into Canada with it, what happens? It's no longer aspirin, but it's not like the properties of the substance in the bottle changed. Now wander around in the vincinity of the border. You will need a GPS system to determine for sure if you have aspirin in your bottle or not. Take one of the tablets out and set it down so that it straddles the border. Now only half of the tablet is aspirin.

Unix is now like that. Unix is whatever OpenSystems says is Unix. And nothing else is Unix. And they can change their mind.

I don't have a list of companies who have officially licensed the Unix name. I don't see any point to obtaining such a list.

well then, who owns "Linux"? anybody?

It's really pointless to have to call BSD a "Unix-like" operating system. It's like having someone own the trademark "gasoline" and then everyone else calling their product a "gasoline-like fuel". My mother is actually a trademark, copyright, and intellectual property attorney. I'll ask her to look into this when she gets a chance.

It makes this whole thing somewhat confusing.

I mean, how far off from something like Solaris is FreeBSD in terms of usability? To the end-user, would they seem extremely similar?

Although, at the same time, tissue manufacturers can't call their product Kleenex, although that word is synonymous with tissues. However I would argue that in the case of intellectual property, namely software, where standards are of importance, Unix should be a universally used term to identify the type of OS by major similarities. In fact it is the standardization argument that I bet would clinch the deal.

Although again, I should really consult my mother on this as it is her line of work and not mine.

this remindes me of something out of the unix haters handbook.

A list of certified systems can be found at http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/.

The benefit of working on UNIX-branded operating systems is that the brand means you can rely on the presence and correctness of the system interfaces and utilities specified in the various versions of the Single UNIX Specification.

Your system will only be branded UNIX if it passes large test suites verifying the compliance with this specification. If a system interface does not function on a UNIX(R) system as documented in this document, this is a bug (the brand ``guarantees'' that this should not happen, or at least be a very unlikely event).

Whether this guaranteed degree of standards conformance is useful to you or not is another question. It can be useful to application programmers. A UNIX-branded system will have many interfaces not found in free ``Unix-like'' systems, such as POSIX message queues, POSIX semaphores and other advanced realtime facilities, as well as *correct* Pthreads and rwlocks/barriers (NPTL finally does a good job on Linux though), to begin with (realtime signals also come to mind, then there's the realtime scheduling class and various timers).

An application written for a UNIX(R) system using only SUS features is supposed to work on all systems complying with that SUS (UNIX95 compliance for example would catch HP-UX, UnixWare, Tru64, AIX, Solaris, IRIX, ...)

> well then, who owns "Linux"? anybody?

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.

But that wasn't the question. From this page: The OP is not looking for a list of standard compliant systems. He wants a list of systems which currently have the right to use the UNIX trademark. And note that So you can lose this right by simply not paying the annual fee. Let's say you're not going to renew. On that anniversary date, one microsecond, you have a UNIX Os. In the very next microsecond, it is something else.

So we would need a list that is kept up to date.

> But that wasn't the question.

I did not intend to answer the OP's question. I elaborated on the technical background of the UNIX-brand, because the posts in this thread implied that getting the right to use the name is solely a matter of paying licensing fees. But in fact you also have to pass said test suites, giving the name an actual meaning, and you cannot just take some version of MS-DOS (or indeed Linux) and brand it UNIX if you have enough money in your pocket.

Also, maybe I should have noted that I was commenting on your doubt about the usefulness of such a list, which I interpreted as a list of systems that have obtained the certification at one time or another, regardless of additional annual fees.

> He wants a list of systems which currently
> have the right to use the UNIX trademark.

I don't think the OP intended to (or even could) make such a distinction, because his question indicates confusion between System V Unix code and the UNIX brand in general, so I would assume details like the one you mentioned aren't that important to him. Also note that he talks about SCO being the only company paying fees for the name, while the last standard SCO's Unix conformed to was UNIX95, so that it would seem they do not have a lot of interest in conformance with new standards anymore.

> So you can lose this right by simply not
> paying the annual fee. Let's say you're not
> going to renew.

I think this is a bit of a red herring. First of all, it is clear that the brand only applies to the single one product you registered, so if you release Solaris 7 and get a UNIX brand for it, you will also have to get a new one for Solaris 8, independently of the date it will be released.

As soon as the product is obsolete enough for the vendor to decide it is not worth to continue paying for it, the only thing that really matters anymore is the technical details. Does Sun still sell Solaris 2.6? I think not. Is it still used to support legacy systems? Most likely.

In my opinion, the list on the link I posted is ``good enough'' for most purposes: It tells you something about the technical abilities of those systems, and it tells you that at least the most recent version(s) of the listed systems are still supported.