What's in a name? (was Re: wanted: UNIX or clone)

[Rahul Dhesi]

In <1991Apr3.053653.592 at mtxinu.COM> ed at mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould) writes:

>I wonder where bizarre ideas like "Unix" is different from "UNIX"
>come from.  Have the people who foster them ever talked to a lawyer
>about trademarks or read an AT&T license agreement?

Trademark lawyers and the AT&T license agreement do not define parts of
speech.  Common usage does.  If enough people verb a noun, the
dictionary writers must--however reluctantly--update their dictionaries
accordingly.

The term "Unix" in all its typographically different incarnations has,
because of common usage, been a noun far longer than it has been a
registered trade mark.

Parts of speech are not defined by legalistic fiat.  (In "Legalistic
fiat", fiat is a noun, and in "Fiat automobile", Fiat is an
adjective.   Letting our brains wander, we also find that in "Fiat
lux", Fiat is a verb while lux is a noun, but in "Lux soap" Lux is an
adjective while soap is a noun; but in "Soap opera", Soap is an
adjective.  Etc.)

In deference to AT&T's attempts to use only the capitalized term "UNIX"
and insist (in deference in turn to trade mark law) that it is an
adjective and not a noun, I simplify the whole complex picture by
saying that "Unix" is a noun and "UNIX" is an adjective.  This should
keep most everybody happy.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi at cirrus.COM>
UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi