The Open Group on UNIX trademark [LWN.net]

From:		"maryann@karinch.com" <maryann@karinch.com>
To:		"lwn@lwn.net" <lwn@lwn.net>
Subject:		=?iso-8859-1?Q?Backgrounder:_UNIX(R)_System_and_SCO_/_IBM_legal?=
Date:		Thu, 22 May 2003 11:20:06 -0400

Status
Regarding SCO's positioning on UNIX, The Open Group would like to make it
clear that SCO holds the rights ONLY to the operating system source code
(originally licensed by AT&T) and related intellectual property and
DOES NOT OWN the UNIX trademark itself or the definition (the Single UNIX
Specification) of what the UNIX system is.

Reference to the SCO web site shows that they own certain intellectual
property and that they correctly attribute the trademark to The Open Group.
SCO has never owned "UNIX". SCO is licensed to use the registered trademark
UNIX "on and in connection" with their products that have been certified by
The Open Group, as are all other licensees.
These are the ONLY circumstances in which a licensee may use the trademark
UNIX on and in connection with it's products.
Statements that SCO "owns the UNIX operating system", has "licensed UNIX to
XYZ" are clearly inaccurate and misleading .

Allen Brown, President & CEO The Open Group says:
Whoever said that, "the first casualty of war is truth" probably did not
expect that it would be quoted in a dispute amongst systems vendors.

By now many of you will be aware that SCO Group has started legal proceedings
against IBM. That action has turned into a war of words and those words very
often serve to mislead or confuse, perhaps not intentionally but nevertheless
fear, uncertainty and doubt is the inevitable result.

The reason this concerns The Open Group is that many organizations who
procure UNIX systems, do so in the knowledge that an operating system that is
certified by The Open Group to use the UNIX trademark, conforms to the Single
UNIX Specification, will always conform and if it is found not to conform,
will be rectified by the vendor at the vendor's expense.

Certification of conformance to standards is critical to the efficient
operation of the market. Governments are particularly concerned with
certified conformance to standards - it is a little late to find out on the
battlefield that a piece of equipment does not meet a supplier's claims of
conformance to standards. This is one example of the importance of a neutral
third-party carrying out the certification process.

The Open Group is the owner of the UNIX trademark which it holds on behalf of
the industry. This truth has not been entirely visible in the media, even
though it is acknowledged on SCO Group products and on their web site.

The Open Group is a vendor-neutral organization. It has no opinion on who is
right and who is wrong in the SCO Group case against IBM; we will leave that
for the courts, the media and those with the time to write-in. However, we do
care about customers and users of UNIX systems whose businesses, or in some
cases, lives, depend upon the UNIX trademark as an indicator of trust, as
they have done for a good number of years now.

The Open Group actively pursues anyone who puts this trademark in harm's way
Initially we seek to use education and persuasion to obtain the correct usage
and attribution of the UNIX trademark. Only in very rarest of cases do we
take legal action, usually after all other courses of action have failed.

The simple fact is that throughout all of this both SCO Group and IBM do have
certified products, are licensed to and do use the UNIX trademark in
association with certified products with the correct attribution.

You can help us to remind the industry of the ownership of the UNIX trademark
and ensure that its proper use as a neutral indicator of certification for
the benefit of customers of UNIX systems.

To help, is very simple, all you have to do is to publish the following
attribution.

"UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and
other countries."

History
In 1994 Novell (who had acquired the UNIX systems business of AT&T/USL)
decided to get out of that business. Rather than sell the business as a
single entity, Novell transferred the rights to the UNIX trademark and the
specification (that subsequently became the Single UNIX Specification) to The
Open Group (at the time X/Open Company). Simultaneously, it sold the UNIX
System V source code and the product implementation (UNIXWARE) to SCO. The
Open Group also owns the trademark UNIXWARE, transferred to them from SCO
more recently.

As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX
trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple
implementations. Since the introduction of the Single UNIX Specification,
there has been a single, open, consensus specification that defines the
requirements for a conformant UNIX system.

There is also a mark, or brand, that is used to identify those products that
have been certified as conforming to the Single UNIX Specification, initially
UNIX 93, followed subsequently by UNIX 95, UNIX 98 and now UNIX 03. Both the
specification and the UNIX trade mark are managed and held in trust for the
industry by The Open Group.

SCO, along with all other vendors of UNIX systems (regardless of wether they
are members of The Open Group or not), distribute a UNIX system that has
been certified through The Open Group (and before that the X/Open)
certification process.

How YOU can help
There is a simple guide to using the trademarks correctly below. In short,
use the (R) symbol on the trademark, use the ownership acknowledgement 'UNIX
is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other
countries.' in all printed materials, get it on your web site, and educate
your colleagues and friends to do the same.
When you buy a system ask the vendor for a certificate of conformance, make
it a requirement to be certified (all key open systems are certified, UNIX
systems amongst them) in your procurements.

References
For further discussion on SCO's IP Claim please also see:
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02_Story01.html
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02_Story04.html#CommunityResponds_SCO-Caldera_IP_Claims
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02_Story04.html
For the Austin Group see:
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/
For LSB certification and testing information see:
http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/
http://www.opengroup.org/testing/lsb-test/
For trademark information
http://www.opengroup.org/legal.htm#trademarks

(Log in to post comments)

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 2:46 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link]

> From my little
> German perspective, this is an alarming sign of
> how deeply the recent militarization of public
> discourse in the countries that invaded Iraq
> has penetrated even into circles which one might
> have deemed resistant to it.

From my little Israeli perspective, this is an alarming sign of how deeply the recent bubble of pacifistic histeria in the (supposedly) safe Europe makes one's inflammed mind seek (and find!) parallels which would never be thought of otherwise.

Let's keep LWN & politics separate, OK?

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 3:48 UTC (Fri) by sinister (guest, #10221) [Link]

These are terms that have been around for many, many, many years. To attribute them to recent events requires ignorance of their previous use for decades or more. Additionally, using their inclusion to attack something based upon some supposed link to "militarization of public discourse in the countries that invaded Iraq" implies that someone is walking around with a delicately balanced chip on their shoulder, and that said someone screams loudly at anyone nearby every time it falls of its own accord. It's also indicative of a person who would be most at home listening to radio signals from outer space through the fillings in his teeth.

Ssigdirb Droflem

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 4:33 UTC (Fri) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]

It is significant though that people get less tolerant, more prone
to onesided view. This type of mind infection is contagious and
reache even technical domains that should remain factual.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 5:50 UTC (Fri) by sinister (guest, #10221) [Link]

The problem is that many of these old cliches take on entirely different meanings as time passes. Take the saying "close, but no cigar" for example. Once upon a time it meant exactly as it reads. It was based on the old "strongman" game wherein someone hit a lever with a sledgehammer that then knocked a slider up to ring a bell. If the bell rang, a cigar was awarded to the person ringing it. Now, however, it means anything that closely approximates something without ever reaching that stage. Such is the intent of the phrasing used in Open Group's writings. They used wording that carried certain connotations a one time, but which now are generally accepted to mean something else entirely. To suggest otherwise suggests more that the complainant is just seeking, and finding, reasons to be offended at something.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 6:21 UTC (Fri) by fpahl (guest, #11409) [Link]

Hey, I thought it said "Please try to be polite and respectful"
somewhere. So I'm a hysterical pacifist with an inflamed mind and
a delicately balanced chip on my shoulder who would be most at home
listening to radio signals from outer space through the fillings in
my teeth and am just seeking and finding reasons to be offended
at something.

Doesn't anyone here share my view? Isn't anyone else disturbed?

Four brief points:
a) I'm not a pacifist. I would have loved to see the US Army
stop the genocide in Rwanda.
b) I believe that this view that language becomes "neutral"
by use over time is incorrect. Language helps to shape our
thoughts. Some Eskimos have thirty words for different types
of snow; for us, it's just snow. It makes a difference whether
things are put "in harm's way" or "at risk". The more military
language becomes accepted and normal, the easier it is to wage
wars of aggression.
c) I may be wrong, but I can't remember ever reading an article
on open software with such a density of military references
before the invasion of Iraq. But maybe that's just what the
fillings in my teeth tell me.
d) I didn't take issue only with the metaphorical references,
which might conceivably be viewed as neutral, but more
specifically with the fact that the use on a battlefield was
portrayed as a normal and important, perhaps even a typical
use of UNIX. I personally would hope that UNIX gets used to
run servers in hospitals and universities, and people who
want to invade other countries under the flimsiest of pretexts
can go and use an abacus.

felix.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 7:54 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

I think the military analogy for business is longstanding. CEOs reading The Art of War and all that. I agree that it'd be nice to see less pervasive violence in our culture, but I don't think recent events are particularly to blame.

As for snow: snow, flakes, blizzard, flurry, slush, powder, drift, sleet...

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 8:43 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

Doesn't anyone here share my view? Isn't anyone else disturbed?

No, frankly I'm a bit annoyed. I saw 11 postings on this article, and I thought "oh good, there's a discussion going on the UNIX trademark." So I click through and get this nonsense instead. You'll have to forgive me, but having spent a large part of my adult life on a college campus I have a very low tolerance for political correctness and the hysteria that accompanies it.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 16:35 UTC (Fri) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link]

> No, frankly I'm a bit annoyed. I saw 11 postings on this article, and I
> thought "oh good, there's a discussion going on the UNIX trademark." So I
> click through and get this nonsense instead. You'll have to forgive me,
> but having spent a large part of my adult life on a college campus I have
> a very low tolerance for political correctness and the hysteria that
> accompanies it.

So then why are you contributing to this nonsense with comments like that last sentence there? Get rid of it and you have a legitimate complaint. But put it in and... you become one of them.

Too bad there's no "Offtopic" filter here, like on Linux Today.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 9:14 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link]

> c) I may be wrong, but I can't remember ever reading an article
> on open software with such a density of military references
> before the invasion of Iraq.

Well, read the man page of kill(1) - you'll be astonished by a density of military terms there ;-)

> d) I didn't take issue only with the metaphorical references,
> which might conceivably be viewed as neutral, but more
> specifically with the fact that the use on a battlefield was
> portrayed as a normal and important, perhaps even a typical
> use of UNIX.

I really don't see how you managed to interpret the example in the original article as a "typical" use. When one wants to make a point, an _important_ example is selected, not necessarily the most probable one. And as to "normal and important" - yes, it's normal and important. Just as army and army service are. Or do you prefer _your_ army using Windows servers instead of Unix?

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 11:41 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

Yes, felix, I share your view.

It's widely acknowledged (in the Jargon File, for instance)
that public pronouncements in the USA tend to be far to the
political right of most of the rest of the world, and that
the news media are less critical of the biggest policy
decisions in the USA than in other countries.

It's also widely acknowledged (throughout the non-Murdoch
press in Britain for example) that British public discourse
has been heading the way of the USA for 25 years or so.

It is not coincidental that these two countries are the
unprovoked agressors in the recent war, and responsible
for the grossest flouting of international law, to the
extent that the strongest peace treaty of all time is now
unenforceable. It's very, very valid to point out how
the use of language of one kind or another in a pervasive
way makes it easier to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.

When the public practise of religion, for instance, involves
regular readings of ancient texts which proclaim that a
particular race of people is responsible for the death of
one of God's relatives, it's quite easy to whip the public
into a frenzy of hatred against that race and to close their
eyes when millions are enslaved, deported and murdered.

On the other hand, suppose that in another country the public
practice of religion prefers to read ancient texts which
proclaim that a particular race is the chosen of God and the
rightful inheritors of a particular piece of ground. It's then
very easy for public figures to justify to the public massive
military funding and consistent diplomatic support against all
other countries of a state which promotes itself as embodying
that race.

In my experience religious people are a bit funny about this
sort of thing, as are people who are exposed to the same kind
of talk in a less worshipful but equally pervasive setting,
like a paper or TV programme they watch semi-religiously.
They're quite liable to accuse anyone who challenges their
assumptions of 'political correctness' and the like. Where
did I put my asbestos suit?....

Jonathan

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 15:58 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

On the other hand, suppose that in another country the public practice of religion prefers to read ancient texts which proclaim that a particular race is the chosen of God and the rightful inheritors of a particular piece of ground. It's then very easy for public figures to justify to the public massive military funding and consistent diplomatic support against all other countries of a state which promotes itself as embodying that race.

I assume that you are referring to the nation of Israel, although what this has to do with the UNIX trademark I've absolutley no idea. What's even less clear is who the public figures who are providing "consistent diplomatic support against all other countries..." are. Certainly not George Bush; he's the first U.S. president to openly support a two state "solution." This seems doomed to failure -- Jews and Arabs have been enemies for 4000 years, and I don't think a U.S. president has much chance of changing this. The Israeli/Arab conflict is a graveyard of political careers.

Where did I put my asbestos suit?...

If you're looking to start a flamewar, you'd be better of trolling at slashdot. The only out-and-out flamewar at LWN was that Mozilla thing about a week ago.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 7:12 UTC (Fri) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]

Military references are all too common in the English language. If you read the tech trade press you will note that war metaphors are commonly used -- I'd say over-used, actually -- and have been long before the (most recent) war in Iraq.

I would agree that people should try to curb this tendency, but not for the same reasons -- framing everything as a battle (for example Linux vs. Microsoft, Sun vs. IBM, Java vs. C#, vi vs. Emacs, and so on) tends to encourage a zero sum mentality -- that only one technology can exist at a time or that there has to be a "winner" and a "loser" in any area where there are two or more similar technologies or companies rather than multiple winners, which is a more realistic scenario.

The poster does raise an interesting point, and I would encourage people to think about how these metaphors affect discourse and what alternatives might be used rather than ridiculing him for raising this point. He's off base in trying to tie it to the current political climate, but it isn't as if tech issues exist in a vacuum with no influence from politics.

Language isn't neutral, there is a significant difference between using a military metaphor or another type of metaphor to describe something. Take the infamous "war on drugs," for example. Think about how that metaphor has framed the debate on drug usage in the U.S., and how our public policies might be different if we had a program of "ending addiction" rather than the "war on drugs."

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 8:44 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

zonker wrote: "I would agree that people should try to curb this tendency, but not for the same reasons -- framing everything as a battle (for example Linux vs. Microsoft, Sun vs. IBM, Java vs. C#, vi vs. Emacs, and so on) tends to encourage a zero sum mentality -- that only one technology can exist at a time or that there has to be a "winner" and a "loser" in any area where there are two or more similar technologies or companies rather than multiple winners, which is a more realistic scenario."

Hear, hear. I also believe that inasmuch as the free software community adopts the war mindset, we are playing into the hands of those for whom it is a native language. They believe they can only make a living if we lose. They are wrong, but they won't be able to change their minds if we assume an adversarial mindset. We need to be more mature and reasonable than they are (which is not difficult a lot of the time... c.f. Mr. Ballmer's performances on stage...) We have a long-standing tradition of courteous, diplomatic interaction and respect for each other when it comes to development (most of the time at least); now we just need to show that to the outside world and help them to realize that sharing is better than intimidation and extortion.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 9:31 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

They believe they can only make a living if we lose.

In the case of MSFT this is probably true. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that MSFT's business plan will be successful in anything other than a monopoly situation. If they have to play on a level field, with viable alternatives to their products and services, they just don't look that good. They'll have to scale way back to remain financially sound as a business.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 7:12 UTC (Fri) by ctg (subscriber, #3459) [Link]

There is a nice word in English called "Zeitgeist" ;-). Unfortunately the "spirit of the age" gets into everything. The best thing to do is just ignore the colourful language....

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 7:27 UTC (Fri) by rstreeks (subscriber, #1018) [Link]

"Zeitgeist" borrowed word from the German language. It's not even English.

warspeak

Posted May 23, 2003 7:32 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

That's the great thing about English. Its vocabulary is bascally a superset of a all other languages. :)

Aren't we going overboard a bit?

Posted May 23, 2003 23:58 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Well, this thread has made a mountain out of a molehill IMO. Alan's a British CEO type and they tend to talk about business that way. Take a look at the way they approach soccer sometime.

Open Group has been working with me to make sure they aren't stepping on the Free Software community's feet. They even pay for the advice, which helps this evangelist feed his family. So, cut them some slack for me, if you will. If you have problems that they should fix, I would not be a bad person to bring them to.

Thanks
Bruce

Aren't we going overboard a bit?

Posted May 24, 2003 21:54 UTC (Sat) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link]

I guess this isn't on topic, but if you're the one who got The Open Group to weigh in with their opinion on this fight between the SCO Group & IBM, you have my thanks. I've been wondering just what the folks who own the UNIX trademark & Single UNIX standard have to say about all of this noise.

And I wonder, when 13 June rolls around & MacBride's lawyers show up before the judge to insist that they can cut off IBM's license, if the judge will look them in the eye & ask if they own the specific intellectual properties they want to deny to IBM. Then after much hemming & hawing, it is discovered that all they can deny to IBM is access to some antiquated code that has been thrown out years ago -- if that.

Or maybe the SCO Group will ask for a continuance when that day arrives. And IBM's lawyers move for a dismissal with prejudice about the injunction.

Ob Guilty Pleasures: Reading & commenting on all of the possibilities with this lawsuit -- not a word of which will effect this case in the least -- is a lot of fun!

Geoff

Aren't we going overboard a bit?

Posted May 26, 2003 8:32 UTC (Mon) by dmomara (guest, #11454) [Link]

I would agree.

History is a terrible thing, a German should be aware that some wars are well worth fighting.

In this historical context the US press had at a point not long ago billed the USL v. BSDi litigation as the "UNIX wars" and it was a bitter thing for the industry. The origin of the Open Group is closely tied with those events.

I for one immediately emailed the open group on seeing the statements damaging to both UNIX(R) and (GNU)/Linux made by the lusers who have come into power at SCO (look at their bios and backgrounds.)

The fact that a _strong_ statement has been made by this organization bodes well for a positive outcome in this matter. In any case this will be educational and ultimately beneficial for the IT community.

UNIX is a registered trademark of the Open Group in the United States and other countries.

Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, a really nice guy (dont cross him.)

Aren't we going overboard a bit?

Posted Jun 2, 2003 7:54 UTC (Mon) by maddog (guest, #11580) [Link]

I was the one who inspired Andrew Josey of the Open Group to write his letter to LWN and to SCO. I accept your thanks. :-)