fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (11/07/85)
> 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"