Especially since Microsoft made their billions by the customer association with IBM, as in "IBM-PC compatible".
Which brings to mind the fact that they also hijacked the term "PC", which was once associated with all brands of microcomputers, to mean only those microcomputers capable of running a Microsoft OS.
My personal feelings about Gates & Co. aside, it seems to me that their point is ill-conceived, since their entire business model consists of branding common terms and open technical standards as their own unique property.
Defending a brand name from becoming generic is not what Microsoft is doing. They're attempting to seize a generic term as "intellectual property". They've failed to do so legally, so now they're bringing their monopoly power to bear on each target in turn.
Which suggests that their real point is anything you can get away with is OK--unless you're someone other than Microsoft.
if you build a theme with the OS X widgets or even one that looks exactly like platinum, nobody can
complain, because, after all, Apple already lost that battle in the '80s.
As the author of AquaX, I'd like to clearly state the following:
* I have not yet been informed of the grounds for the removal, only of the fact of the removal. (I have asked for further clarification, but I have already been told that the removed themes were specifically identified by Apple.)
* Althought the indicated themes were removed from themes.org, after the posting, many Aqua themes were still available, including my AquaX sawfish theme . . .
* The AquaX theme removed from themes.org was the AquaX GTK theme--the one that provides the matching controls (like scrollbars & buttons), not the window borders & decorations.
* AquaX did not include an Apple logo. Period. Furthermore, the documentation within the theme, as well as the t.o blurb indicated that AquaX was inspired by Apple's OS X GUI, Aqua.
* I chose the name AquaX because of the symmetry of 'Aqua for X' with 'Aqua for OS X'
* IANAL, but I believe that my adaptation of the 'Aqua look' falls under the category of 'fair use', especially given the decisions in 'look and feel' suits. But without knowing the substance of the allegation(s), all we can do is speculate.
* I bear no ill will toward t.o for choosing to comply w/ the c&d request--especially since I was duly informed of the decision. My feelings toward Apple will depend upon the nature of the alleged infringement.
OTOH, I guess I should be flattered that my insignificant efforts have gained such notoriety, especially considering that another Aqua imitator (which shall remain nameless;-) had a slightly higher DL statistic . ..
Do not meddle in the affairs of bards,
for they are not at all subtle . . .
Prodigy is not just Prodigy--it's Prodigy+SBC. In a recent set of mergers, SBC acquired PacBell, Nevada Bell, SNET, & Ameritech. In a side deal, completed 01-Jun-2000, SBC created a new limited partnership (43% SBC, 57% Prodigy) in which Prodigy takes over all of the ISP operations, while SBC concentrates on the core telecommunications business.
At the very least, I expect BT is after some cross-licensing of patents w/ SBC, especially since SBC is one of the largest US investors in European telecommunications.
Which makes me suspect that this case will not lead to a major reworking of IP law . ..
Do not meddle in the affairs of bards,
for they are not at all subtle . . .
For a Q&D look at the complexities of employee status, consider this: a pastor retained by a church is an employee for income tax purposes but self-employed for FICA/Medicare tax purposes. (Additionally, honoraria received for weddings, baptisms, funerals, and the like are considered Schedule C self-employment income.)
IANAL, YMMV, etc., etc.
But, IAAOM (ordained minister) and have filed substantial documentation supporting my 1040 and schedules C & SE every year I was active in ministry.
Look and feel are not protected by copyright, but the code and images used to create that "look and feel" are. Great. At the very least, we of the free software community ought to have the intellectual honesty to give credit to our sources. (Yep, sources. Stealing from one is plagarism, stealing from many, research.) But credit to whom? To the immediate source or the primary source? More importantly, how do we *know* where credit is due? I've seen collections of web graphics that claimed copyright on all of the images within their site yet included duplicates from other sources--even to the filename and size. Is it enough to say "I found it at Al's Used Icon Lot" or does it become incumbent upon me to discover that it was really drawn by Zoe (who released it for free distribution and use but maintains copyright on her work)?
To be honest, I've grabbed graphics from *all* over--and I'm not completely certain about the source of each (although I try to be careful to ensure that they're freely usable). Plus, I've tweaked some so much that the deriviation is not obvious to anyone but myself (since I keep copies of my source images).
While not in the same league as the wholesale copying from a single site, I'm not entirely convinced in my own mind that "stealing from many" is any better--especially when appropriate credit can by given.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting take on the issue.
Especially since Microsoft made their billions by the customer association with IBM, as in "IBM-PC compatible".
Which brings to mind the fact that they also hijacked the term "PC", which was once associated with all brands of microcomputers, to mean only those microcomputers capable of running a Microsoft OS.
My personal feelings about Gates & Co. aside, it seems to me that their point is ill-conceived, since their entire business model consists of branding common terms and open technical standards as their own unique property.
Defending a brand name from becoming generic is not what Microsoft is doing. They're attempting to seize a generic term as "intellectual property". They've failed to do so legally, so now they're bringing their monopoly power to bear on each target in turn.
Which suggests that their real point is anything you can get away with is OK--unless you're someone other than Microsoft.
As the author of AquaX, I'd like to clearly state the following:
* I have not yet been informed of the grounds for the removal, only of the fact of the removal. (I have asked for further clarification, but I have already been told that the removed themes were specifically identified by Apple.)
* Althought the indicated themes were removed from themes.org, after the posting, many Aqua themes were still available, including my AquaX sawfish theme . . .
* The AquaX theme removed from themes.org was the AquaX GTK theme--the one that provides the matching controls (like scrollbars & buttons), not the window borders & decorations.
* AquaX did not include an Apple logo. Period. Furthermore, the documentation within the theme, as well as the t.o blurb indicated that AquaX was inspired by Apple's OS X GUI, Aqua.
* I chose the name AquaX because of the symmetry of 'Aqua for X' with 'Aqua for OS X'
* IANAL, but I believe that my adaptation of the 'Aqua look' falls under the category of 'fair use', especially given the decisions in 'look and feel' suits. But without knowing the substance of the allegation(s), all we can do is speculate.
* I bear no ill will toward t.o for choosing to comply w/ the c&d request--especially since I was duly informed of the decision. My feelings toward Apple will depend upon the nature of the alleged infringement.
OTOH, I guess I should be flattered that my insignificant efforts have gained such notoriety, especially considering that another Aqua imitator (which shall remain nameless ;-) had a slightly higher DL statistic . . .
Do not meddle in the affairs of bards,
for they are not at all subtle . . .
Prodigy is not just Prodigy--it's Prodigy+SBC. In a recent set of mergers, SBC acquired PacBell, Nevada Bell, SNET, & Ameritech. In a side deal, completed 01-Jun-2000, SBC created a new limited partnership (43% SBC, 57% Prodigy) in which Prodigy takes over all of the ISP operations, while SBC concentrates on the core telecommunications business.
At the very least, I expect BT is after some cross-licensing of patents w/ SBC, especially since SBC is one of the largest US investors in European telecommunications.
Which makes me suspect that this case will not lead to a major reworking of IP law . . .
Do not meddle in the affairs of bards,
for they are not at all subtle . . .
IANAL, YMMV, etc., etc.
But, IAAOM (ordained minister) and have filed substantial documentation supporting my 1040 and schedules C & SE every year I was active in ministry.
--
To be honest, I've grabbed graphics from *all* over--and I'm not completely certain about the source of each (although I try to be careful to ensure that they're freely usable). Plus, I've tweaked some so much that the deriviation is not obvious to anyone but myself (since I keep copies of my source images).
While not in the same league as the wholesale copying from a single site, I'm not entirely convinced in my own mind that "stealing from many" is any better--especially when appropriate credit can by given.
--