[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[patv@monmouth.com (Pat Villani)]

Brantley Coile wrote:
>> 2. Will use coff executable format. May comply with Sys V ABI.  The
>> latter is TBD.
> 
> 
> Please don't do that.  There is no value in being Sys V ABI compliant and
> the original a.out work very well.  I've used it for two and a half
> decades now, and still use it on Plan 9.  There just needs to be magic
> numbers for the various formats.  I would suggest looking at the
> 10Edition information for things that arn't as they currently are.

A large part of my decision is based on using the gcc tool chain.  Since
coff is one of the binary formats, and it was a unix format, I thought
it would work here as well.  I don't see a real need for the ABI, but
may do it if it is easy.

>> 8. 32I is the interim name.  I would have preferred Unix version 7, but
>> can't for obvious trademark reasons.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively
> disassociate a mark after the fact.  If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS Unix 
> 32v.
> I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue
> that it's not Unix 32V anymore.

I was one of many who represented DEC at the Open Group during Digital
UNIX certification.  I'm familiar with unix branding, and I know I can't
use the unix trademark, at least not without a lot of rework to the
original source and a lot of money to go to TOG for testing.

Technically, there is new, original code being developed that will be
combined with the original code.  This is a new product, even if the
original code was called unix.  Only the VAX binary can still be called
unix.

I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the subject.

Pat

-- 
I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. -- Wilson Mizner