Since this floated back to the top, bear in mind that
The Open Group are *not* SCO. It's a consortium - including IBM's backing - that, in fact, is all about defining 'UNIX' through specs and standards, to the benefit of the companies involved.
Problem is, they do look a bit dated, given the IEEE's POSIX has done much more for compatibility in general (while, in turn, being broken enough that nobody can take it as 'law'), and the certification fees - which seemed a fine and dandy way to keep the effort self-supporting while keeping the rabble out, back in the '80s - now seem a bit heinous given the popularity of Free Software. Some of their big efforts, like the CDE, have fallen by the wayside... On the other hand, things like LDAP and the LSB (is that an Open Group 'product,' or do they just offer certification?) are still going strong.
Now, IBM doesn't have Apple's problem - they market AIX as UNIX (and have paid their dues for it), and Linux as Linux (defined by itself - Linus owns the trademark - and the LSB!). People marketing BSD OSes have a slightly more confusing battle - it's derived from original UNIX sources, it's certainly as or more "UNIX" than Linux, but consider the following:
"What's Linux?" "It's a UNIX-like kernel project developed by Linus Torvalds."
"What's BSD?" "It's a UNIX."
The second usage is the problem; BSD *was* UNIX, as defined by AT&T and modified by Berkely. However, as owners of the trademark, the Open Group now define "UNIX," and they really wish Apple would get certified before using phrases like "Advanced UNIX Operating System" in their marketing materials. It's a civil process, but since they couldn't talk Apple into it - and Apple hasn't tweaked their wording (you won't see Free, Net, or OpenBSD expressly claiming they're "UNIX" - at closest, they'll say they're "UNIX-derived," and point you to the history books), they're in violation of the trademark, and the court process has to ensue... Doubtless, *everyone's* interested what the judge will decide.
This is less 'frivolous' than simply 'how the UNIX world works.' The outcome of the case will probably clear the situation up for everyone - has 'UNIX' become a generic term?
The Open Group have their evidence right there on Apple's OS X pages (which, unfortunately, I can't quote right now... Apple.com seems to have gone unreachable tonight!?), and have certainly been a respected, if questioned, player for years now; the 'violation' is obvious, even if it's annoying and we might like to see the term go generic... In contrast, SCO are making claims while having spent the past few years selling the supposedly 'violating' Linux code, and are making questionable arguments while refusing to tell anyone what exactly they feel is 'stolen'... beyond concepts like multiple processor support itself.
You can read more about their requirements for UNIX(TM) certification
over here. Remember, the big shots - IBM, Sun, Fujitsu, HP - all got together and backed this effort to ensure their products could work together. There are also statements
against SCO's actions on their
front page.
