Slashdot Mirror
Apple Threatens Open Source Theme Project
cloudscout writes "Macworld UK is reporting that Apple is threatening the Mac Themes Project for creating a theme editor. Apple accuses them of contributing to trademark infringement by enabling people to copy Apple's graphics. They've issued a cease-and-desist order insisting that MTP remove their theme editor from all webservers under their control, "including any hyperlink to other locations where the material may be available". They're even trying to invoke a shaky clause in their OS licenses which prohibit reverse-engineering the operating system since the theme editor utilizes unpublished specs. Apple is famous for its unfriendly attitude toward developers and tech media, but this is just ridiculous. How could they possibly suffer any damage by MTP's efforts? " I'm seriously disappointed to see this. Apple's lawyers are their own worst enemy: they've tried so hard to make Darwin open and gain acceptance, and then to pull crap like this. Its just so dumb I don't know how to respond.
Linux may have been developed for the PC computer, created by IBM, MS, and the Federal Justice department, but before then the S-100 bus systems were considerably more open.
MS was subsidized by IBM because the government was attempting to destroy IBM's monopoly over computer hardware. So IBM found so.meone else to create a PC OS for them.
Competition? MS lived on indirect government subsidy almost from the beginning! And the "openness" of the PC was because when MSDOS split from PCDOS, MS needed someone to manufacture the hardware. Even with the subsidy they were too small, and IBM didn't dare compete directly (and didn't think it too important, and didn't want to cannibalize their mainframe business). So Compaq and Zenith and Packard and Bell etc. got into the hardware business with the MSDOS operating system. And since IBM had the dominant position, most of the new 16 bit programs were written to run on the PC, and MS new the internals of PCDOS, so they used inside knowledge in creating MSDOS so that the same programs would run on them.
Fair competition. Yeah! Maybe once, but the more I look, the more it looks like a myth. Insiders making sharp deals is more like it, and certainly much more common, no matter what the laws say.
(Or so it seems to me.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Just don't bolt a handle from an old car door to the top of it, then glue all your mouse buttons together to form one "super" button.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
If Apple were a person, I'd think of them as a creative individual with schizophrenic tendancies marked with delusions of grandeur and persecution and a possible self-destructive urge.
Certainly lashing out at the Themes editor is crazy . . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Your right, there are probably more KDE and GNOME users than OSX users out there, but if you have used OSX you would realize that they are two completely different worlds of usability.
Though technically KDE and Gnome did bring A desktop to UNIX, I have a rough time comparing a window manager/development framework to a true desktop computing environment.
I have been using OSX for about 5 weeks for development and administration. I don't even turn on my x86 box anymore. With the headstart that OSX already has on KDE/Gnome and the speed that it's moving.. I have a hard time believing that even KDE will catch up to it.
the problem isn't KDE but the fragmentation of the linux community. The only chance that KDE maybe has to Linux Standards project. Until then I am still fighting with not only administrating our servers but my own workstation, no thanks. OSX is here to stay for me.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
I can't see a single post commenting that - as usual - companies sometimes threaten suit for trademark infringement because they are legally obliged to.[1] Don't forget that if you don't defend your trademark, then it becomes something anyone can use. This would be worse for apple than letting the themes site continue.
I don't think anyone gains out of this but the lawyers. If Mr MacThemes managed to engineer his software such that it couldn't copy images tagged as apple's trademark[2], then I think the suite would disappear like snow off a dyke, since as everyone is pointing out, this hurts Apple too.
-Baz
[1] IANAL
[2] And why not? It would be trivial for apple to put 'Registered Trademark of Apple Corp' in a tEXt chunk of a PNG or whatever.
I agree that Apple should fire (or at least muzzle) their law firm, but overall it's not that bad of a company.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
"Microsoft clobbered Apple -- and the rest of the industry -- with openness."
That was IBM, not MS. Even IBM didn't want to build an open system, they were forced into because Apple already had such a lead that IBM didn't have time to design a closed system. When clonemakers reverse-engineered the PC, IBM sued them and lost.
Microsoft was never for openness, and neither was IBM. The US courts and IBM clonemakers were responsible for cheap, open PCs.
"Linux itself exists only because Microsoft created the modern microcomputer industry, where standardized, fully-documented hardware was available at reasonable prices dictated by a competitive marketplace."
Intel created the modern microcomputer industry. IBM helped them with the software side. The competitive marketplace, again, existed because of the PC clonemakers and the US courts, in spite of IBM. Microsoft never even entered the picture.
"It's no coincidence that Linux was first developed for the same hardware platform as DOS."
Coincidence? That was Linus' personal decision: beacuse the 386 was fairly cheap and fairly capable. Because Intel made a good, cheap chip. Not because of MS.
"Microsoft has always been open and competitive. They encourage competition and thrive on it."
MS is an anticompetitive cartel. They use anything from copyright law to patent law to contract law to undocumented features to make sure their competition does not have a chance.
MacOS X includes a full version of OS 9.1 in the box with it. Users do not need to, as you suggest, spend an extra $100 to upgrade "to OS 9.something in order to run their 'Classic' applications". If they purchase MacOS X, they automatically get the software required for Classic compatibility.
First, this almost completely unknown software is now making headlines on all of the trade websites. This is going to instantly boost the popularity of the project.
Second, open source contributors are going to be less likely to develop software for MacOS X if they're going to be expected to clear all of their development plans with Apple's legal department first. It's hard to be creative and "Think Different" under these kinds of restrictions.
Right foot. *BLAM* Left foot. *BLAM*
Yes that's the best part about the world today. You know I don't see other enablers getting sued. Otherwise gun manufacturers would be gone in a week. You cannot prosecute the tool creator. It's the end user who puts it to use in whatever way they see fit(that's from my department of redundancy department). It makes me sick.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
You missed the point didn't you?
The editor enables third parties to "improperly copy Apple's copyrighted software code and graphic files.
So we should stop making word processors because someone might write something that is a copy of something copyrighted?
unauthorized reverse-engineering of its software.
This battle has been fought out in court by others and it has been decided its legal to reverse engineer software. It doesn't matter if some group of Nazi's has authorized you.
Obviously there is a whole lot of history that you are completely blind to. I just thought I'd make these points before other someone starts to agree with you.
Their motivation is this:
It is not a copyright issue. It is a trademark issue, and as has been said here many times before, trademarks exist on an "enforce it or lose it" basis. If they want to retain the right to spank people in the future for ripping off their trademarks, they must remain agressive about enforcing them agains everybody, all the time.
That's all that is happening here. Their lawyers are over-reacting a little to protect Apple's trademarks.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
They may be wrong, but that's what we have the courts for.
Your attitude is exactly what I was talking about. You hear about one company suing one group and start shouting bloody murder at the top of your lungs, instantly insisting that Apple is an evil emprire out to destroy your freedom. I would bet $100 that you never even used Themes... you probably have not even heard of them before today, and more than likely are not even a Mac user... yet you are among those complaining the loudest, because you make the knee-jerk, yes "us vs. them", assumption that any big company that sues a small group must be out to ruin democracy.
Count to ten, think calmly. You might come to realize that while Apple may be wrong about the extent of their trademark rights, they very well might credibly believe that they needed to press this case in order to protect their trademarks. Things are not always as simple as the Big Bad Corp trying to squish the Little Guy.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Sure, except we are talking about two completely different products here.
The MacOS 8.1 (which is what this lawsuit concerns) is an old product that the probably would rather not spend legal resources licensing out to other people. It's a lot cheaper to just send people letters saying "quit ripping us off" than it is to establish a policy for pricing and distribution of licenses to every tiny shop of GUI hackers that wants to play with it.
The good news is that Apple eventually treats their old OS releases as Abandonware. You can download System 7.5.3 for free from their website and monkey with it all you want. I suspect that they will eventually do the same with OS 8.0 - 9.1... probably a few months after they have migrated the vast majority of users and apps to OS X.
OS X, on the other hand, is built on open source code, with open source licensing. You can hack the shit out of "Darwin" all you want. Write a totally new GUI for it, port it to run on a Sparc, whatever trips your trigger. Apple can't open up Aqua, because a lot of the tech involved is owned by another company (Adobe). Nor can they open up Quicktime, which is built on a closed codec that they don't own... but the open kernel and BSD layer is clearly their future direction. Apple is slowly being transformed into the company that NeXT could have been if it didn't lack the resources and market force. As a developer, even if you don't like Apple as a company, this is a Good Thing. NextStep was easy to write for, and if the trickle of new apps already coming in is anything to go by, it looks like developers are having a pretty good time with OS X, too. I suspect that we are going to see some pretty cool ideas emerge out of all this.
Opening up a company like Apple is like opening up China. Sure you can shout at them and try to freeze them out, but that will just make them shut their doors to all of your ideas. By working with them, you can gradually introduce your philosphies into their worldview. Peaceful transformation is slower than confrontation, but it is also far less painful.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Meanwhile, I'll comment that Rob's statement:
[T]hey've tried so hard to make Darwin open and gain acceptance, and then to pull crap like this.
makes the asumption that's central to the Slashdot mystique: that contributing to free software development and buying into Stallmanesque ideology are necessarily intertwined. The reality is that most of the individuals making significant contributions to free software, including Darwin, have little no to interest in the 2600 wannabe mentality that has come to dominate Slashdot and very few of the IP complainers will ever contribute to any project.
No, the real problem here is that Apple continues to alienate the early adopters, tweakers and hobbyists who are the core of the companies user base and who are the ones who kept it afloat.
I'll close by pointing out that it was my favorite tech company that finally _really_ brought Unix to the desktop, while Slashdot's pick turned out a slow, bloated Explorer knockoff, and fired half their workers the day they finished it...
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Seems Slashdots manta is if its on the internet, it must be true. This project has an activity of 0% with no released files in 6 months and out of the blue Apple tries to shutdown what appears to be an already inactive project. Did you bother verifing this report?
Burn Hollywood Burn
I was hoping to keep this out of the press until we had more time to prepare, but since someone leaked it already
Apple has two complaints against the software, Theme Machine, which allows users to create themes for the Mac OS. First:
So their complaint is not that we are infringing on Apple's trademarks, but that we contribute to other users ability to do so. I can't imagine that argument holding up in any court. Because I did not help to write the program, I cannot speak authoritatively about the methods used to develop it. However, preliminary research indicated that those methods were appropriate via the fair use doctrine established in Sega v Accolade under the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals.Of course, all of this is moot, because we are just a few random guys who have never met face to face, and have neither the funding nor the desire for a protracted legal battle with Apple. Ironically, we've been doing this for more than two years, and the Editor doesn't even work with Mac OS X. I'll be pulling it shortly, but if you'd like to get involved with the Mac Themes neXt project, please contact me
I taped a Tupperware bowl to the back of my monitor.