Article-I.D.: mot.439
Posted: Thu Nov  7 15:20:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 22:23:56 EST
References: <2193@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ  85282
Lines: 23
Xref: utcs net.unix:6170 net.micro:12295

> There was a point about what *approved*, and *port acceptance* mean
> in practice. The major issue is that you may call something UNIX
> (and advertise it as such) if it has Bell's blessing. Otherwise,
> the name must not be UNIX ( such as Xenix, Venix, Ultrix, etc. ).

i couldn't begin to count the number of times we've gone around and around
on this one with AT&T.  their statement has consistently been that the
UNIX name was theirs alone and could *NOT* even be used for a certified port
by anyone other than AT&T.  i am therefore baffled that Intel and
National are using the word "UNIX" in the name of their Sys V versions.

AT&T calls what they sell (they only deal in source) from our port
"UNIX System V/M68000 Version".  we call it (binary) "SYSTEM V/68" and are
permitted to say that it was "derived from AT&T's UNIX System V" and that
the port has been "certified" (*) as the Right Stuff by AT&T.

(*) Unix versions which pass the SVID test suite may say they have been
 "verified" at SVID Issue X.  this test is less stringent than certification.
-- 
<< Generic disclaimer >>
Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ
UUCP:  {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4, attunix}!mot!fred
ARPA:  oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA          "Families are Forever"