[geeks] Re: linux is not unix

[Zach Malone]

I think he meant that there is no central Linux authority with the money to
get it licensed as an official UNIX.  I may be wrong here, but after a
couple readings, that was how I interpreted it.
    Zach
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg A. Woods" <woods at weird.com>
To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
Cc: "Sun Geeks List" <geeks at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:38 PM
Subject: [geeks] Re: linux is not unix



> > For the Unix98 "problem", I answer that is something not Unix just
because
> > there isn't a central authority to pay for the certification?
>
> Not to be too picky or anything (my favourite NetBSD doesn't meet Unix98
> either), but there certainly _IS_ a central authority who you can pay to
> get full and proper Unix certification, and strictly you cannot call
> your system a "unix system" unless you have had it certified as one.
> Indeed if you try to declare your system to be a "unix system" without
> having first obtained the necessary certification to do so that central
> agency will send you a very scary "cease and desist" letter and if you
> fail to obey it they'll haul your arse directly into court faster than
> you can spell "unix".