Hi all...

In response to the recent "easter egg" in 4.2's song, I asked about some possible meaning behind the "100001 1010101" bit and only ended up more confused as a result of what one individual provided in their replies.

Could anybody enlighten me on proper UNIX association... here are the messages...

In response to "theraven"'s speculation over the song at:
http://slashdot.org/~TheRaven64/journal/184027

me:
Perhaps: Regarding "...these are ! and U..." As in "not equal to proprietary" (UNIX vs unix/unix-like) Or in other words, "free"

theraven:
"Could be, but considering the fact that GNU's Not UNIX, and the song is fairly anti-GNU in places, I'd guess not. Especially since OpenBSD is UNIX, it just isn't UNIX(TM)."

me:
Okay... I didn't know OpenBSD was UNIX. I thought OpenBSD was Unix; and that UNIX was a registered trademark of The Open Group, with systems like "UNIX 98" and "UNIX 03". My bad. The "GNU's Not Unix" GNU bit makes sense, though I was simply referring to the difference between $ and free. I was under the impression that UNIX regarded $ and Unix = free. Oh well, no biggy. :-p

theraven:
"UNIX was an operating system released by AT&T in the late '70s. Some guys at Berkeley added a load of stuff to it, and called their version the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). Since it was based on the AT&T code, you needed a license from AT&T to use it. They gradually replaced the AT&T code with their own, and in 4.2BSD-lite, there was no AT&T code, allowing the whole system to be distributed for free (and Free). OpenBSD is based on 4.2BSD-lite, and so contains no original UNIX code, but can trace its evolution back to the original UNIX.

The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark (although they are very careful not to test it in court, where it would probably be determined to be a generic term and not subject to trademarks). They can say that something is UNIX(tm) or not; all you have to do is pass a conformance test and pay them a large heap of money. OpenBSD i...
[ message continues ]

You've got all the information you need to determine how _you_ will
refer to OpenBSD.  The commercial UNIX(tm) offerings incorporate(d) a
heck of a lot of BSD code in order to do any networking.  That's OK, the
licence allows that (they may have since redone all the code, making
UNIX(tm) a BSD-Like OS).  

I don't see any historical reference to the origional BSD people calling
their release BSD UNIX but just the BSD.  IIRC, they were contracted by
DARPA to take UNIX and add networking, which they did and called it BSD.
Since the lawsuite, people have taken to calling BSD UNIX.  

During that lawsuit, when the future of BSD was up-in-the air, Linus
needed a UNIX-like OS to run on his 386.  He couldn't run the BSD kernel
legally and so he wrote a kernel from scratch that mimicked the
functionality of UNIX/BSD but without using any contested code.  If it
wasn't for that lawsuit, there probably wouldn't be a Linux but he
probably would have used one of the BSDs.

I'll give you an analogy that isn't automobiles but isn't UNIX either.
Radio Shack in Canada.  Tandy is a US company that, among other things,
runs consumer electronics (and gadget parts) stores in the US and
licenced the name to Radio Shack Canada.  They later pulled their
license on some of the store-brand products, so that Realistic radios
had to be named something else ASAP (they chose GeneXa or something
targeted to Generation Xers).  A few years later, they pulled the
licence to the Radio Shack name itself, so now we have "The Source, by
Circuit City".  Circuit city being another comsumer electronics chain
with no store-brand or CIP (Crap in Plastic; Computerized Inventory
Program).  But everyone calls the store Radio Shack.

So is The Source = Radioshack?  It is a direct decendant but it can't
legally call itself Radioshack.  

So is OpenBSD = UNIX?  It is a direct decendant but it can't legally
call itself UNIX; and calling itself UNIX would be seen (IMHO) as a
branding issue infringing on Trade Mark.

I don't ...
[ message continues ]

Is OpenBSD UNIX, Unix, unix, unix-like, or ham sandwich on rye?
ECHO Echo echo (echo-like)...

In response to that, one person answered the question with a question. "Does it matter?" If answering a question with a question, it'd help to provide a thought-provoking (worthwhile) question in response. One could say, yes, of course it matters; or, it doesn't matter at all. To each there's a solid argument or counter, but "does it matter?" is a bit dry if you're going to just leave it at that. Reflect on it, please, else don't bother responding.

I'm surprised that someone else found my question on UNIX and unix-like/etc. terminology disambiguation to be "the first" they've heard of it. The only distinction I refer to is that of UNIX and everything else (which includes, but is not limited to, terms like "unix-like").

Jon R.'s reply, including the tess2.uspto.gov link, was very helpful. I wasn't aware of U.S. Trademark law details and that was basically what my curiosity all narrowed down to. I suppose there is a truth in any potential confusion between Unix (etc.) and UNIX not being a concern of one random person (me) on this planet but others as well.

In truth, it doesn't matter.
In truth, it does matter.
It's how each person chooses to see it. Right? Hmm...
Well, the "however" bit is: it's also how the creators of one particular OS see it, and in this case - my question regards OpenBSD creator's thoughts.

I would appreciate hearing from Theo de Raadt (albeit this is a trivial topic) his take on this subject. UNIX or unix-like or simply Unix (etc., it goes on), or just, "I don't give a shit, just call it what you want, as long as you call it OpenBSD"... That's my take on it, personally - so long as we give the respect of BSD and of course *Open*BSD.

All of this play on names can be exhausting but we have to remember that there is a lot of meaning behind a name and potentially a lot of power in something so "simple" as "just a name".

I found Doug T.'s reply most helpful (thank you Doug)... Jon ...
[ message continues ]

I don't believe U.S. trademark law cares much about capitalization of
word marks.  Unix, UNIX, unix -- all covered by the same registration.
(This is distinct from registering logos which happen to incorporate
your word mark, where case, font, and color tend to matter.)

After all, the whole point to registering a trademark is to put the
world on notice that you don't want other parties using marks that might
be confused with yours in commerce.  You've just proven that Unix gets
confused with UNIX.  ;-)

See http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=95mrtn.1.1 to look
 "UNIX" up for yourself.

YMMV in other countries and I not be a lawyer.

--Jon Radel

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/x-pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]

> Does OpenBSD = UNIX? Or, does OpenBSD = Unix? (or unix or unix-like or etc.)

You are the first person I've seen to makes a distinction between unix,
Unix, and UNIX and imply that the distinction has any meaning.

// marc

does it matter?

It does! UNIX *is* case sensitive! ;)

ciao

Luca

my mother recently called it "that Unisex thing you like", though am
not sure of the capitalization :)

mike

From _Wizard's Bane_, Rick Cook, a very silly book:

"You mean you really do not have magic where you come from?"
"The closest I ever came to magic was working with Unix wizards," said Wiz.
"Eunuchs wizards? Did they do that to themselves to gain power?"

-- 
David Given
dg@cowlark.com

PHB     - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
PHB     - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
            never mind."

-- 
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@absolute-performance.com
303-443-7000 ext. 527

I like that explanation best. :)

-- 
Public Key:
http://mpec.net/gsd.asc