> > I've checked the FAQs, and I can't seem to find a good answer to this: why > is Linux not refered to as a flavor of Unix? On Linux.Org, it's referred to > as "Unix-like", and this hedging seems pretty universal. Is there some > Unix standard that Linux does not adhere to. Is there some licensing > organization that expects someone to pony up some dough before they can say, > "Unix(TM)" (but if that's it, who paid for FreeBSD?) In my experience, > Linux is no more different from any particular flavor of Unix than Solaris > is from AIX, or whatever - is there some important difference I'm missing? >
Yes, UNIX is a owned name we would have to pay to use the name and pass tests.
