On 16 Nov 2024 13:37:04 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:That
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:12:56 -0500, Joel wrote:
even Apple's crap has Unix components.
Not enough to count as a “real” *nix any more -- if it ever did.
I'm no Apple fan, but macOS isn't just *nix, i.e. 'unix'/'Unix', but
actually UNIX.
So it’s an official trademark licensee (the last one still standing).
doesn’t mean it works the way people expect when they think of “Unix”.
What does the Mac not do that "Unix" (as you call it[*]) can do?
Despite the various problems with Windows, it still holds the
admirable distinction of being the only operating system that's not
also a religion.
It is recognized that you have a funny sense of "Unix".
On 17 Nov 2024 07:05:15 GMT, vallor wrote:
It is recognized that you have a funny sense of "Unix".
It’s not just me:
ldo@theon:blender> cat $(find . -name CMakeLists.txt) | grep -Fc 'if(UNIX AND NOT APPLE'
26
ldo@theon:blender> cat $(find . -name CMakeLists.txt) | grep -Fc 'if(UNIX)'
8
It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
And that's if a build, even needs that kind of filtering during the
build.
Paul wrote:
It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
Some of us prefer *nix to describe the functional characteristics, to
avoid any accusations of infringing on the trademark.
And that's if a build, even needs that kind of filtering during the
build.
Blender is over a million lines of source code. Yes, it needs that kind of >discrimination.
On 17/11/2024 15:20, Newyana2 wrote:
<snip advocacy>
Typical cola stuff this, why did you remove the crosspost?
It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
And Darwin might well be the name of the OS in that example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29
...BSD
I don't recollect seeing "UNIX" as such in an old Makefile.
Keywords might be BSD4.3 BSD4.4 SYSV .
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:11:28 -0500, Paul wrote:
It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
Some of us prefer ?*nix? to describe the functional characteristics, to
avoid any accusations of infringing on the trademark.
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
On 18 Nov 2024 18:18:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
Trademarks can be infringed if you have something that looks too close.
Would you really want to argue that ?Unix? is distinct enough from ?UNIX??
I wouldn?t. And I?m not even a lawyer.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 18 Nov 2024 18:18:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
Trademarks can be infringed if you have something that looks too close.
Would you really want to argue that ?Unix? is distinct enough from ?UNIX?? >> I wouldn?t. And I?m not even a lawyer.
Don't take my word for it. Read the Wikipedia page, especially the 'Branding' section. You'll see that 'Unix' is the preferred/recommended usage.
Seems that its become a 'Kleenex'-esque legality question.
In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.
I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.
On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.
... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...
Considering that Linus's original intent in Linux's creation was
essentially to have a free Unix for himself, it would make sense for a certification interest to have come along ..
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:11:28 -0500, Paul wrote:
It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
Some of us prefer ?*nix? to describe the functional characteristics, to
avoid any accusations of infringing on the trademark.
As has been said, 'Unix' is the common usage. See for example
'Unix'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix>
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.
So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.
Totally silly.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:58:27 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux >>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.
... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...
You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists “EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
past) become Unix licensees.
Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
about such things any more.
-highhorse wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
-highhorse wrote:
In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux >>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.
... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...
You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists >EulerOS and Inspur K-UX as Linux distros that did (at least in the
past) become Unix licensees.
Never heard of them? Thats part of the point, isnt it, that nobody cares >about such things any more.
Considering that Linus's original intent in Linux's creation was
essentially to have a free Unix for himself, it would make sense for a
certification interest to have come along ..
Given that he wanted a *nix (something that had the right behaviour)
rather than a Unix (trademark licence), no, official certification would >not have made sense. What was important was adherence to de facto
standards that people (like him) actually cared about. For example, there
are some obscure parts of POSIX that they have never bothered with.
On 11/19/24 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists
“EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
past) become Unix licensees.
Sure, but as I mentioned, this was from a very old COLA challenge, and
none of these fanboys did the legwork back then, nor since (until now).
Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
about such things any more.
Not necessarily "not care", as both are from Chinese corporations, and
in this era, they were taking steps to prevent capture/lock-in from
Google in the Android market space.
From their perspective, the Unix certification process was just part of
that effort of in-house development and more IP on testing to exploit.
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects (while not taking the same
position on Android - how odd! /s), that's what they should have raised.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.
I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didn’t you?
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any >> more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and
Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.
A lot of it seems to hang on supporting 'pax'; which linux can't be
bothered with ...
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didn’t you?
Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.
So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.
Totally silly.
Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it is “totally silly”.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didnt you?
(snip lies)
So you should be able to back up your claim, that hardcore Linux
advocates rejected those distros.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.
So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.
Totally silly.
Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
is “totally silly”.
One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didn’t you?
Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.
[/quote]It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
product with little apparent significance.
No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that
you linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of
you bought software in their software center? Hell, how many of
you bought and/or donated to Canonical to help ensure the success
of a small business that is trying to get Linux on the desktop to
be a viable and profitable product?
I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU!
[/quote]No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity?
Support?
Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man?
Application software, which you probably already knew. But the
tone of your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is
the extremely piss poor attitude of the linux community as a group.
"I don't like it so it must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is
just bitching. A possible future linux desktop user would be
totally put off by comments like that.
Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject
failure despite being a pretty good OS overall.
[/quote]That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.
You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10,
iOS, Android and Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much
more knowledgeable about the comparisons of the various OS's.
[/quote]I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows'
monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to
happen because Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ...
customers for huge their profit margins.
Those grapes are really sour huh, wRonG?
It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that
scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after
seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in
just a few short years.
It is quite interesting to hear chrisv first promote 'healthy'
competition and then to try use Android as a notional example, when
we all know that the reality is that Android wouldn't have existed
had it not been by huge bankrolling by Google. As to just how
huge, the number is at least in the tens of billions. Case in
point:
"Google: We're Spending $12.5 Billion on Motorola to 'Protect'
Android"
On 11/18/2024 6:59 PM, shitv wrote:
a group of mostly decent, reasonable advocates of software Freedom.
The decency and reasonableness of cola Linux advocates is off the charts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feeb on ONE DAY!: "technical loser, incompetent technical idiot, retard, pathetic, brain-dead loser, damn bitch, Microshit assholes, inferior
piece of genetic trash, extermination camps should be brought back, Fuck you, fuck your degenerate family, abysmal, know-nothing moron, lame ass steaming pile of festering garbage known as Microshit Winblows, fucking loser, fucking plagiarist, Fucking loser, incompetent loser,
mutherfucking imbecilic asshole, Fuck you, Incompetent ass-sucking
ignoramus idiot asshole mutherfucker, fucking clueless plagiarist, mutherfucking, cocksucking, plagiarizing asshole, Fucking loser,
Fucking plagiarizing loser, I'd throw you out a third-story window, mutherfucking imbecilic asshole, pathetic, sad-sack sexual loser, Black girls would spit in your sorry face"
Ruben Safir: "go stick your head in an oven and turn on the gas."
Tattoo Deadbeat: "Please make a New Years' resolution to commit suicide. Better yet, murder/suicide and take your fellow trolls with you."
Doug Menthol: "Fuck off, get cancer and die a long and painfull death."
Tattoo Deadbeat: "Somebody needs to shoot DFS in the head."
[H]ypocrite [H]omer: "Shut your fat mouth you stupid fucking American
inbred Redneck"
[H]ypocrite [H]omer: "Burn in Hell"
Creepy Christopher John Ahlstrom: "dumb fucker", "Lying Hadron Cunt", "fucking dumb", "shitty little assholes", "go to Hell", "true pieces of shit", "fuckhead"
Telnet Porter: "And they do have a lot to fear, between me shoving
their teeth down their throats..."
(p)Rick: "Fuck you, you lying bitch."
Nobody: "Shouldn't you be on a ledge somewhere?"
Dumb Willie followup: "With a crowd shouting "Jump!"
Scott 'vallor' Doty: "incompetent", "psychopaths", "sociopaths",
"asshole", "jerk", "half-wit"
yttrx: "fucking moron."
Greg Shearman: "fuckwit lying cunt"
Tattoo Deadbeat: "Get the fuck out, then, bitch."
Kier: "go fuck yourself"
Philip Callan: "You ignorant fuck ..."
Fraud 7: "No good flat fsck. You are an in-bread American commie
troll... You produce nothing of value to America..."
JED: "stupid", "idiot", "moron", "loser"
And the previous King Of Nasty Little Fucks: yourself:
(in one post): "Fsck you...snotty POS....asshole...worthless waste of skin...you suck shit...God-damned...fsckwit...Wintroll fsckwits."
(in 17 days during June 2012):
"idiot, stupid, morons and assholes, fucking moron, true stupidity,
puerile assholery, worthless POS, evil bastards, trolling assholes,
jackass, dumb bastard, Wintroll circle-jerk, trolls are filthy, lying
piece of shit, piece of shit, POS, POS, what an *asshole*, fucking *assholes*, shitty and dishonest Linux-haters, prick shit-canned, filthy lying *asshole*, shit-brained arsehole, *stupidity* of epic proportions, stupid* pile of shit, *jackass*, too God-damned *stupid*, trolling
shitwits, *stupid*, assholery, brain-damaged fucktard, piece of shit, drooling retard/liar, drooling retard/liar, stupid piece of shit wannabe dictators, jackass, clueless and lying idiot, ignorant ass, Stupid
fuckwit!, You stepped in your own shit, fuckwitted asshole, extremely shitty, lying asshole, trolling fuckwit, you *stupid* asshole, POS,
asshole, shitty dishonesty, piece of shit, asshole, fuckwit, fuckwit,
lying fuckwit, you POS, you stupid piece of shit, couple of dishonest
little shits, a disease infesting the planet, POS and liar, fucktard
trolls, Windows-loving asshole, shitty, filthy Wintroll, bald-faced
liar, you piece of shit liar, shitty, useless Linux-haters, you stupid
piece of shit, piece of shit, Utterly worthless liar, filthy Win troll, lying pieces of shit, fricken jackass, worthless lying POS jackass, shamelessly lying POS, worthless, shit-brained asshole, POS liar, the
filthy liar, evil selfish bastards, fucking idiot, fucking *stupid*, ignorant, spews garbage, jackass, idiot asshole, piece of shit, stupid
POS, trolling fuckwit, POS, lies his ass off, vile thing, shitty, liar, ignorant lying piece of shit, vile bastard asshole liar, fucking *liar*, worthless, shameless jackass, shitty, piece of shit liar, shameless
jackass, filthy lying assholes, jackass, cram it up your ass, asshole,
POS, filthy, immoral, dogshit brains, shitty little freedom-hating
dictator wannabee, fucking idiot, piece of shit, stupid, ignorant,
shameless asshole. Linux-hating pieces of shit, fucking, shit, shitty, shitty, shitty, selfish assholes, shamelessly dishonest POS, vile lying bastards, filthy liar, filthy fucks, fucking *assholes*, disgusting
scumbag, vile filthy mean, fuckwit, filthy fucking, liar, trolling
fuckwit, POS, filthy fuckwit, vile pukes, you shit, vile bastards,
filthy fuck, mentally-defective bigots disgusting freaks, piece of shit, filthy lying bigot, shitty, filthy bigots, trolling fuckwit and shit,
vile bigot, fuckwit piece of shit disgusting freak" -------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being >>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didn’t you?
Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.
I did say "perhaps" ...
"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
the point of having an independent certification.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
-hh wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
-hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being >>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didnt you?
Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
So you should be able to back up your claim, that hardcore Linux
advocates rejected those distros.
I did say "perhaps", as I've not read every last COLA thread and have
perfect retention on all of them. But checking just the COLA archives
on Google where one of these certified Unix versions were mentioned by
name, I did find the following:
"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
(further idiocy and evasions snipped)
-highhorse wrote:
I did say "perhaps" ...
Ah, like the way a certain political leader says some people say when >spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is >actually coming from. Pure insinuation on your part, in other words.
-hh wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
-hh wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
-hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being >>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didn’t you?
Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.
I did say "perhaps", as I've not read every last COLA thread and have
perfect retention on all of them. But checking just the COLA archives
on Google where one of these certified Unix versions were mentioned by
name, I did find the following:
"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
(further idiocy and evasions snipped)
Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure"
Open Source projects.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being >>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
You just made that up, didn’t you?
Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.
I did say "perhaps" ...
Ah, like the way a certain political leader says “some people say” when spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is actually coming from.
"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
the point of having an independent certification.
It’s simple fact, as borne out by the popularity of Linux itself.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.
So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.
Totally silly.
Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
is “totally silly”.
One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.
But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but measures
to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
rational response.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but measures
to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
rational response.
The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger.
Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
example.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:measures
But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but
to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
rational response.
The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger.
You hope.
Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
example.
That might be considered “legal advice” ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.
I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N. >>>> Courts decided it was similar enough.
So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.
Totally silly.
Strange, isn?t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
is ?totally silly?.
One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.
But above you were describing as ?silly? not the legislation, but measures to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely rational response.
The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger. Nobody is going
to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for example. That's not really how it works. So in such circumstances, it's silly to worry
about that.
But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
example.
That might be considered “legal advice” ...
Another totally silly thing---to have to state things such as IANAL and
other silly things.
chrisv wrote:
Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure"
Open Source projects.
(snipped, unread)
-hh wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure" >>>Open Source projects.
(snipped, unread)
Of course, there is nothing wrong with an individual choosing, or
rejecting, or advocating-for, a product for any reason that they think >important. Including "purity".
But snits, like -highhorse, will twist such opinions into something
"bad", something "anti choice".
I'll use this analogy again: There is nothing wrong with saying that
you should not vote for Donald Trump. It only beomes bad when you say
that people should not be allowed to vote for Donald Trump.
No real FOSS advocate seeks to deny anyone the choice of "less pure" >open-source products.
chrisv wrote:
{doublepost whining ... snipped!}
On 23 Nov 2024 14:02:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.
?*nix? is the recommended usage. Also it avoids confusion with systems
like Apple, which are official ?Unix? trademark licensees, but don?t
really work the way we expect.
... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e.
all uppercase and without quotes.
On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e. all uppercase and without quotes.
What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee"
...
What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?
Sigh! Of course they are licensing the trademark, but the trademark is 'UNIX', not 'Unix'.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 508 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 224:11:59 |
| Calls: | 9,976 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,833 |
| Messages: | 6,359,117 |