Apple Threatens Open Source Theme Project 414
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.
Re:For their own (Score:2)
I think it's highly unlikely that they're planning their own theme editor. The Theme feature is dead, and since 9.1 is likely the last version of classic Mac OS ever, I don't see any way they'd re-introduce it in the future. Even if they theme OS X, it'll likely be a completely different format.
So I have no idea what Apple's motivation is. They probably just want to kill off the theme feature to make tech support and stuff easier. But if that's true, then they would have disabled the theming feature in OS 9, which they did not do. So I don't understand this decision either.
Re:Double Barrel (Score:2)
Of course, they wouldn't get the negative PR if they didn't do such incrediably-fscking-stupid things!
Geeks are prone to lash back at things they object to, sometimese rightly, and sometimes wrongly (insert reference to the linux advocacy howto here). However, I think that in this case we are completely right to lash out at apple, or their lawyers, as they are finishing off with their own feet and turning the shotgun around to point at their own heads.
Re:Double Barrel (Score:2)
I'm not crazy!
I'm not crazy!
Re:What is it good for? (Score:2)
Re:What is it good for? (Score:2)
It's a silly argument, and it's detrimental to bring it up when there are far better arguments for keeping gun ownership legal, like keeping the government honest.
Re:What is it good for? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? well that's just great... (Score:3)
screwdriver: primary purpose - turning screws.
theme editor: primary purpose - making own themes.
gun: primary purpose - throwing a bullet at dangerous speed through the air.
See the difference?
Re:If Apple Were a Person . . . (Score:2)
Inventing the Lisa Interface [rr.com] to see that the Lisa GUI predates contact with PARC.
in fact, it' has all kinds of cool stuff about Lisa.
hawk, one of about 6
Re:BBWC (Score:2)
hawk
Re:They weren't trying for OSS acceptance. (Score:2)
Nope. No obligation at all. The simple fact of the matter is that, under certain circumstances, it makes economic sense for a corporation to use an open source model for the "generic" portions of their product--development and maintenance costs may simply be less than the market opportunities sacrificed. In other words, Apple's and IBM's open source activities are driven by economics, not ideology.
I'm working on a paper on this right now, hopefully available in the late summer or fall.
o.b. gratuitious plug: grad students in economics with a background in the public goods literature may feel free to contact me about co-authoring the paper
hawk
Re:If Apple Were a Person . . . (Score:2)
while I'm at it, a lot of it predates the Star--to a significant extent, Lisa and Mac were implementations of Raskin's master's thesis from the 60's . . .
i
hawk
Re:dink thifferent (Score:2)
"avi tevanian: hey steve, look! some guys are doing kaleidoscope for os X!"
You paint a convincing scene, but I should point out that the Mac Themes project has nothing to do with OS X: it's about theming OS 8.5 and its descendents through the Appearance Manager. Here's what they say about OS X support on their web site [macthemes.org]:
Re:Why are people so surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Why are people so surprised? (Score:2)
This version of MacOSX will come with dev tools. It's is "quasi-beta" which means it's MS-quality release code (*snicker*).
Future versions/releases will *not* come with the dev tools CD.
Yeah, some will always be available at the website, but not everything you got with this version.
Ciao!
Why did they fund MKLinux? (Score:2)
Re:Hold it... (Score:2)
Re:feed the troll (Score:2)
The one about infringing the Lanham act sounds pretty bogus to me. The theme editor in question is no more responsible for a trademark infringement a user of it may choose to commit than a camera manufacturer is if I choose to take photographs of someone's trademarked logo and use it myself. There is to my knowledge no history of camera firms, photocopier manufacturers etc. being held partly responsible for trademark infringement using their products.
Copyright infringement is a very grey area around things like this -- sometimes the makers of tools that can be used to circumvent copyright are liable, sometimes not. However, the theme editor is capable of substantial noninfringing use, which strengthens its case.
The final argument is that, because the API for doing things like this is not documented anywhere, the only way the writers of this tool could have found out how to do it is by reverse engineering Apple's OS, which is prohibited by their click-thru license.
It's a possible infringement, but it would be an uphill task for Apple to prove. Firstly, the authors could have discovered the API through other means. If Apple have told ANYONE about them, then it could have been disclosed through that third party. If, say, Apple told a third party software developer how to do these things, and THEIR license agreement didn't have a 'don't reverse engineer' clause, then the theme editor programmers are in the clear.
Then there's the problem of proving in court that the authors of the editor actually agreed to that click-thru agreement. If they got their hands on the Apple OS second-hand, for example. Sure, the license probably says that if you sell the software, you have to make the buyer agree to the license first -- but what if someone didn't do that? They are liable, not the editor writers.
Then there's the issue as to whether the agreement had any legal binding whatsoever in the first place. The legality of click-thru licenses is somewhat suspect in most states.
Apple have something of a case, but in a fair trial they have no guarantee of victory. It's probably not a risk they want to take -- if I were Apple, I wouldn't want this to go to court. What if I got found against?
Apple are, I'm sure, hoping the editor guys fold before trial because they can't afford to defend themselves.
All the above is ignoring whether it's smart of Apple to do this. From a PR point of view it's a disaster -- Apple really can't afford to be alienating people who'd care about this. The people this hurts are the Apple evangelists and diehard users who are a large part of what keeps the company going.
I would guess that the PR angle was overridden by Apple's fear that, unless they're hyper vigilant, their interface is going to get stolen out from under them. Not by people playing with themes, but by a big player -- Microsoft, or someone else big -- who will use any failure by Apple to enforce their rights in order to get away with cloning the Apple interface.
This is an outrage! (Score:2)
Oh wait, I've been boycotting Apple ever since they killed the Apple IIgs in order to promote an underpowered piece of crap without sound or even color graphics called... was it 'Granny Smith' or 'Macintosh' or something?
Well, whatever. I'm really mad now.
--
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
Maybe you've forgotten because of all the propaganda surrounding the napster case and the RIAA, but there is a legal doctrine called "fair use". If you own a CD, it is within your legal rights to rip a few tracks from that disc and burn them onto a mix CD. It's no different from making mix tapes to listen to in a car without a CD player. As long as you're ripping from CDs you own, it's legal. Don't listen to the RIAA's 'all copying is piracy' line. They're full of sh*t.
Re:If someone knows where to d/l this then... (Score:2)
it was in the original story post.
Re:FSF vs. "Open Source" (Score:2)
It's obvious you've not bothered to read anything Stallman says or you wouldn't say that.
I'm reminded of the old joke... (Score:3)
A fish and game warden comes upon a woman sitting along the river with a rod and reel.
He accuses her of fishing without a license, because she has the equipment.
She promptly accuses him of rape.
He's flabbergasted -- he's not even touched the woman.
The reply: "But you have the equipment."
Simply making a tool that people could use to violate Apple's trademarks/copyrights/IP and that has other uses is a reasonable thing to do, and, if Apple were reasonable, would not be a problem any more than IE, which allows you to copy Apple's graphics from their website and do with them what you will. I do notice that Apple's not suing Microsoft...
Dejaffa
Re:It the law people (Score:2)
Furthermore, they are going after them for reverse engineering because they used OS hooks that aren't published.
This isn't a trademark case, this is an instance of a company trying to maintain complete control of it's software. It's a lot more like the MPAA and DeCSS then it is making themes.org take down themes that really did have the Apple logo on them (that was an honest trademark case).
Double Standards and Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like MS is just as insane! (Score:2)
Re:they are trying to be profitable. (Score:2)
Philosophy, ***, I removed Windows from my home computer because of license and security issues. It's true, I'd prefer a better word processor (wait a few months), but that's not enough reason to expose myself. Not with UCITA and DMCA roaming around.
As for Apple. I was interested, now I'm not. I still advise total newbies to go with the Mac, but if Linux gets better, and Apple continues to alienate me, perhaps I'll be willing to give enough support just so that I won't need to recommend them.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Double Barrel (Score:2)
The problem is, the graphic arts aren't that different from every other market. They demand slickness, and they pay a high margin, so if you have a slick enough product, you can retreat there for awhile. But they aren't a large enough niche to maintain a company. So you better have some strategy that will let you move out quickly. Or else you fade into the past as a reverred memory.
I think that the Mac has a potential way out based on System/X, Darwin, etc. But if they alienate the folk that they need as supporters, it won't work. And this last move has made friends with very few.
They may see it as protecting their short term profits. I see it as dynamiting their life-support system.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Just remember, over 90% (95%? 99%? I don't keep track.) of legislators are lawyers. So the legal profession as a group is directly responsible for the mess that we are in, as well as directly benefiting.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
If you have enough money and time to defend yourself in multiple court actions and appeals.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Open (Market|Architecture) vs. Closed (Score:5)
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.
Re:I am the recipient of the cease and desist orde (Score:2)
Granted, it's a stupid decision by Apple. But how much obsessing about it do we need? Especially more than this?
--
Isn't this the OPPOSITE of Trademark infringment? (Score:3)
There's only two reasons I can think Apple be upset about this.
1) Fear of having their interface diluted. They don't want the MacOS associated with joe phearsum's 1337-7h3m3. Or maybe even joe graphic designer's luscious theme. It's worse if they throw in apple graphics.
2) They feel like they're legally bound to defend trademarks.
Of course, given the fact that most of their customers are fairly loyal, asking people nicely not to use apple graphics in their own themes would probably work....
'course, now that they've lost goodwill....
--
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
--
Re:Do you think they'll sue me for copying the iMa (Score:5)
--
Re:come on (Score:2)
First of all, Compaq could reverse engineer because they had the reverse engineering done by people who never agreed to the licence agreement. The ones who were "polluted" (wrote the spec based on the copywritten BOIS) couldn't reverse engineer.
Secondly, MS did NOT reverse engineer J++. They licenced Java from Sun, and then willfully tried to get around the licence and refused to implement parts of the Java spec. Sun doesn't care if you provide additional non-Sun APIs to work with Java, even ones that interact with native code (Apple has developed many over time with nary a lawsuit). Sun did care that MS violated a licence agreement.
-jon
Re:For their own (Score:3)
Apple put the Theme system in back in 1994 or 1995. It was part of Copland and their idea of a scalable user interface. There were three Themes shown: Platinum, Gizmo, and High Tech. Apple even hired one of the guys who works on Kaleidiscope (a third-party Theme switcher for the Mac).
When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, he killed Themes. The official reason was that it made tech support too hard: people would call up and it was impossible to know what and where widgets would be on their screen.
Personally, I think it was just Jobs' control-freak personality showing through. The Apple engineers implemented Aqua as a Theme in OS X (in older versions of Mac OS X, you could remove the Aqua Theme files and you get a Platinum look and feel. I don't know if this still works.), so there's some support for the concept inside the company. It's just crazy Steve Jobs again...
The bigger question is if Apple is going to try to squish any shareware developer who writes UI widgets to fix the awful problems in Mac OS X. Aqua is pretty enough, but there is such a huge usability problem with OS X, I find my WinNT box at work easier to use than OS X at home. I've been booting back into OS 9 and realizing how _simple_ and _fast_ everything used to be...
-jon
not so fast (Score:2)
First, they promised this OS for years, and have finally delivered a product that requires a person to upgrade for $100 to OS 9.something in order to run their "Classic" applications, then spend $100 on the new OS.
OS 9.1 (what you need to run classic apps) is included in the OS X box. You don't need to purchase it seperatly.
Not to mention that the average Apple sold in the last few years is a DIMM or two short of the requisite 128mb of RAM.
If you select the cheap option, sure. Other OEM's do the same thing.
I priced upgrading my Rev. A iMac a week or two ago because of how everyone on Slashdot raves about OS X. I'm looking at probably $500 in software and memory just to make sure I don't lose a lot more than I gain.
Only if you pay Apple's exorborant markups for memory. Just walk over to pricewatch, buy a 256 meg stick of PC100 for $45, slap it in your iMac and go nuts.
o apparently "Think Different" doesn't mean "Different" except in terms of "Make sure different people have the money in your wallet". For $500 I can buy a whole new Wintel box
Or you could do a couple seconds worth of research on Apple's products and shop around for a better deal on add-on hardware. But then you'd miss out on all the cheap karma from the Apple-hating moderators on Slashdot.
Re:You mean like .... Steve Jobs? (Score:2)
--
If Apple Were a Person . . . (Score:5)
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 . . .
So.. let me get this straight. (Score:2)
What.. are they jealous because they didn't include a theme editor?
This is what will kill OS-X. I said over and over again to friends, OS-X is cool, I think it's *really* cool, but I just have this feeling Apple will fuck it up.
Looks like they're on their way.
Re:come on (Score:2)
I'm sorry... talking about the power of your OS, then forbidding anyone to develop for it without purchasing a developer kit & license is rediculous. What this effectively means is that if you 'figure out' how to do anything not documented, you can't share it with anyone, as you reverse engineered it.
So much for apple.
Re:If Apple Were a Person . . . (Score:2)
Mod this up (Score:2)
-----
Re:Apple, Apple... (Score:5)
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?
Re:Incorrect - 96M is not good (Score:2)
Even without classic it swaps it brains out with 96M of memory. Well, its ok until you start running applications, I assume you wanted to run something rather than just look at the dock.
Be very careful getting upgrade memory for your iMac rev A. The RAM vendors have forgetten these machines and "works in non-slotloading iMacs" does NOT mean rev A. revA has the little key tab in a different spot on the SODIMM. I'm still looking for a big revA SODIMM. (And returning very nice but incompatible RAM.)
So what? (Score:2)
"How can an artist expect to make a living when our paintings and styles are so easily copied by these young upstarts? Everyone who is able to afford a brush considers himself and artist," one notable but whiney famous artist was quoted as saying in a poor rendition of an Italian accent.
Minor corrections (Score:2)
Also, rewriting a GUI for Darwin would be pointless, since the Aqua GUI and the Carbon & Cocoa APIs are foundation of every reason to buy Mac OS X. They define the user experience. Using Darwin on it's own just gets you a version of BSD/Mach with a weird filesystem layout and native support for HFS & HFS+ volumes.
Also, the "theming engine" referred to is simply the Appearance Manager. It was originally intended to support multiple Mac OS interfaces, but Jobs ironically decided that allowing users to drastically change the interface would be confusing. (Poor, poor Kaleidoscope users. They must be so confused.) This product is simply a tool to create native Mac OS 8.1+ themes for use in the Appearance manager. I don't really understand what Apple's problem is with it.
Otherwise, your points are all valid, especially the point about jumping up and down and shouting at Apple.
Re:The "G4 Fiasco" (Score:2)
If you read Motorola's website, it's quite clear that they don't care about the desktop market at all. All their documentation and marketing for PowerPC processors (which is all tucked away from their main products) advocates their use in embedded systems. You'll find nary a mention of Apple as a successful customer. The fact is that Motorla doesn't give a damn about Apple.
As much as I like the technical merits of PowerPC processor family, I've been pushed over the past year into the firm belief that Apple should once again make the move to a different processor family or to begin designing a strategy that can continue to fund OS development without depending on hardware sales. I'm convinced that the failed AIM alliance is nothing but an albatross around Apple's neck. Maybe if Exponential's technology hadn't have been inferior to the PPC 750, we'd have a company dedicated to the Mac for survival right now that could keep Apple going.
In the end, the G4 fiasco was a sign that Apple has tied its destiny to the whims of two companies who are content to let them die. Motorola will fiddle while Cupertino burns, and that great titan IBM, will simply shrug.
(Is that enough pointless and melodramatic literary references for you all? <g>)
Re:The "G4 Fiasco" (Score:2)
The "G4 Fiasco" (Score:3)
I'll take this one.
I remember this clearly because I was looking to purchasing my PowerMac G4 around that time. Originally, the first PowerMac G4s were going to be shipped with 400, 450, and 500 MHz processors. However, the thrice-damned Motorola was well into the swing of giving Moore's Law the finger, and they couldn't produce enough 500 MHz processors to meet the demand. Apple made a move that many, including myself, considered ill-advised at the time. Since they couldn't sell 500 MHz PMG4's, they retroactively adjusted the entire line -50 MHz for the same price. 400 MHz machines became 350 MHz machines for the exact same price. They simply waved their hand over all orders and changed them. I think I remember them giving special condolance offers to people who already had orders in the system, but everyone afterwards had to pay the same for less. It was a total rip-off.
I ended up with a 400 MHz (middle-of-the-line) machine, with the intention to upgrade it with a dual-processor card (which has yet to materialize), but I feel a little upset in that I could've gotten that processor for cheaper before the change.
Anyway, that's what he was talking about.
Re:What amazes me so much.... (Score:3)
Well, you're kind of off-base about the pipeline.
MPC7400 -- 4-stage pipeline (Fetch, decode, execute, and writeback)
MPC7410 -- 4-stage pipeline (Ditto...)
MPC7450 -- 7-stage pipeline (Didn't find the names)
All this information can be found on Motorola's website in their technical specs for the processors. I'm very unhappy about them moving to a 7-stage pipeline, since that small, simple pipeline has been a key to competing with x86 processors. However, to say that they are just as over-extended as the Pentium IV is ridiculous. The Pentium IV has a 20-stage pipeline! That can be a 20-cycle gap in execution when you have a branch mispredicition. Sure, it can dispatch 6 instructions at once, compared to the MPC74XX's 3 at once, but when 50% of your instructions are memory-bound load/store operations, it doesn't really help that much in the average case. This why even the Athlon doesn't bother with more than 3 even with its 15-stage pipeline.
Granted, Apple is exaggerating by saying that just because certain operations (all SIMD-heavy Photoshop filter) complete at half the time of a top-of-the-line Pentium system, that the PowerMac G4 is always going to be twice as fast. However, the fact remains that for those operations, a chip clocked at half the speed does perform twice as fast. It does go to show that MHz as a rating of performance is just an imaginary figure used to blow magical marketing smoke. Apple just decided to Blow Smoke Different.
Re:why is this bad? (Score:2)
They are duty bound to do this (Score:4)
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.
Re:Incorrect (Score:2)
----
Think Different ads (Score:2)
Apple didn't make Caesar Chavez a sell out. His family did.
----
Re:For their own (Score:2)
<BR>
<BR>
The article says: "improperly copying Apple's copyrighted software code and graphic files".
<BR><BR>
<I>
<BR><BR>
You don't agree with someone (but didn't even bother to read the article), so you unsult them? Real mature.
<BR><BR>
<i> Someday they will grow up and work in the real world, and find out that things don't always break down to "us vs. them".</i>
<BR><BR>
Who said anything about "us vs. them"? People don't like Apple Corp's actions, so they get decide to do something about it - would you rather they just sit there and let major corporations steamroller individual rights and freedoms? Well, given all your talk about the "real world", probably - for you, the "real world" is one where people don't have ideals, hopes, dreams. Well, that's certainly not the real world I know. One day, you'll realize how artificial your "real world" is - I just hope you don't fuck up too many lives before then.
Re:For their own (Score:2)
Their lawyers ought to know better - this couldn't *possibly* be a trademark violation. Yes, I understand the nature of trademark law. Do you?
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.
Your mention of "one company" is a total red herring - that company is Apple. I never said that Apple is an evil empire - I said that they did something which is wrong, and which infringes on my freedom of speech. Why should I not complain when something like this happens?
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...
So, we must be entirely self-interested bastards? We can't stand up for principles?
yet you are among those complaining the loudest
I would hardly call a post to Slashdot a loud complaint.
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.
It's hardly an assumption - I read the fucking article, and the quote from the letter *tells* me what they're doing. They are abusing their power, and attacking people who have done nothing wrong - again, this isn't an assumption, it's what their letter said.
Count to ten, think calmly.
Given that I actually read the article, clearly I'm thinking more calmly than a troll like you who rushes off to post before learning what the letter said.
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.
If you had actually read my post or the article, you would know that the only thing Apple said was about copyrights, *not* trademarks. Macworld said things about trademarks - but there's no *real* evidence that this is a trademark case. I don't see how it could possibly be - and if you knew anything at all about IP law, you would agree.
Re:For their own (Score:2)
OK, now I've read their list archives, and I can say that this is totally wrong. Especially the copyright stuff, but also the TM stuff (See below)
I would say this is simply a trademark issue which is not understood by anyone, other than the parties involved.
Not understood by you, maybe - but I can (now) read the letter that Apple sent. I can understand the issues - they claim contributory infringement under the copyright, trademark, and trade dress acts, as well as licence violation. Well, there's no such thing (at least in Title 15 ch. 22) as contributory TM infringement... So, they have no need to cover their asses (copyrights don't require that). They *know* exactly what they're doing - and it's *wrong*.
The funniest thing here is this was a rumour of a cease and desist letter, and everyone went ballistic.
A news report is not a rumor.
Did Slashdot editors try to contact members of the Themes Project? For that matter did Macworld UK?
Presumably, MWUK was contacted by one of the members - they *did* have copies of the letters. Or, maybe they didn't - but the mailing list archives were and are publicly available.
This is shotty journalism at it's worst. If you want to change the world, you have to do your homework.
I looked up the applicable laws - what did you do?
Comparing Apples and Intels (Score:2)
Re:If someone knows where to d/l this then... (Score:2)
Wiliam
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
Re:feed the troll (Score:2)
Re:If Apple Were a Person . . . (Score:2)
Re:feed the troll (Score:2)
There are many (legitimate) ways to install or use software without going through a clickwrap installer. If the company suspects all it's customers then it really should be having them sign agreements at time of purchase. Once I own (have in my physical control) a piece of software, they have already given up their rights. They can only hope that I will read their instructions, play nice, jump through their hoops, and rescind rights I already have when I leave the store.
Re: KDE/GNOME "advancedness" (Score:2)
So I ask: you who use KDE/GNOME: what kind of machines do you have? Have you tried WindowMaker?
------
Re: KDE/GNOME "advancedness" (Score:2)
I do it all the time. Try grabbing the bottom left or right corners.
No easy way to get a 'taskbar' - most of my apps appear as the default WM icon, which is extremely unhelpful I suppose i could go and assign a bitmap to each app, but i'd rather just have a taskbar, not some giant square brick with an unrecognisable glyph on it.
fspanel [chatjunkies.org] should suit your needs there.
I agree WindowMaker is lacking in some respects, but given my options, I would (and do) choose it over anything else currently available.
------
Re: KDE/GNOME "advancedness" (Score:2)
I actually do use Windowmaker on my server, since i haven't bothered to install GNOME on it, and it is fast.
What is annoying are the little things, like not being able to resize windows by dragging out their corners - i.e you can only resize horizontally or vertically
No easy way to get a 'taskbar' - most of my apps appear as the default WM icon, which is extremely unhelpful I suppose i could go and assign a bitmap to each app, but i'd rather just have a taskbar, not some giant square brick with an unrecognisable glyph on it.
I do like the 'slide-up' menus, but you can't fix the menu in place, which makes it too easy to shift it around, and the 'sliding' behaviour seems erratic when run remotely, even with animations turned off.
There seems to be 2 icons produced for each app - whats up with that?
I used to use enlightenment (which was, arguably, the project that got linux noticed on the desktop) till i found sawfish, and now i wouldn't use anything else on my workstations.
I would like to see a hybrid between the GNUStep style of 'dock' and GNOME desktop functionality.. i.e. get rid of the 'panel' and replace it with a WindowMaker 'dock'.
Wmaker sliding, tearable menus are neat, and a great idea, but they need to be dockable, and you should be free to use a window manager that doesn't limit you like the WM default one does.
Thats just my 2c. I certainly agree that a full GNOME/KDE setup is pretty slow and bloated, and i'd like to see more of Window Makers good ideas adopted into a stripped-down GNOME subset for those of us who don't run linux on 1GHz monsters.
Maybe i just need to hack about with this stuff some more....
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
My rule (which isn't too far from the law) is that if the intent in creating the product was to enable people to commit a crime, then it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously there's plenty of shades of grey in cases like this- but this specific case, it seems very clear to me that this is fair use.
Re:If Apple Were a Person . . . (Score:2)
-----------------------
Fuck lawyers... (Score:2)
Eventually Apple will get with it an throw the bastards out. It might take a while, but eventually they will realize the same thing that AOL/Time-Warner did during the Harry Potter legal mess: YOU DO NOT MAKE, NOR SAVE MONEY, BY ATTACKING PAYING CUSTOMERS.
How Long... (Score:2)
Re:Worse, hardware disappearing (Score:2)
--
Re:Worse, hardware disappearing (Score:2)
--
Re:What amazes me so much.... (Score:5)
I agree that Apple should fire (or at least muzzle) their law firm, but overall it's not that bad of a company.
--
Re:If someone knows where to d/l this then... (Score:2)
Link is in my
-----
Re:They are duty bound to do SOMETHING (Score:2)
True, but... you can defend your trademark without being an asshole. There was an excellent article in Webtechniqes [webtechniques.com] about this very topic, written by an intellectual property lawyer. A few crucial quotes:
ok, let me get this straight.... (Score:2)
Re:Open (Market|Architecture) vs. Closed (Score:5)
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.
Incorrect (Score:4)
Double Barrel (Score:5)
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*
Why Apple, why? (Score:3)
Who cares about lousy Themes? Why must you guys always come across as jerks?
Put someone in charge of the legal department from PR, ask not if you can win the case, but ask if this action helps Apple.
Why?
Re:Huh? (Score:4)
feed the troll (Score:4)
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.
Re:Incorrect (Score:3)
Plus, rev A iMacs were designed to run OS 8.1, not OS X. If you want a superb box for OS X, go buy one. That's what I'll do when I get too frustrated with the speed of my box.
PS Yes I'm somewhat of a developer (a monor programmer). C++ and Java, mostly, though I'm excited about the possibilities for perl on X. The dev tools work fine on my box.
MyopicProwls
Re:If Apple Were a Person . . . (Score:5)
In other words - Steve Jobs ?
Re:For their own (Score:4)
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.
Re:For their own (Score:4)
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.
Re:For their own (Score:5)
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.
This is a strange attitude... (Score:3)
On one hand, Apple wishes to leverage the power of open source development, and on the other they want control over their intellectual property. There is no doubt that this causes internal conflicts at Apple. They *should* be very careful on how they handle this situation.
First off, if they alienate open source developers, they lose a significant portion of their developer support. I'm not sure if they care at this point, because they have a working, published product. This is still dangerous for them though because they are scaring away potential open source help for future projects.
Second, Darwin/OSX can be viewed as something of a ground breaking experiment in alternative development methodologies. As with many past projects, they are really setting future corporate development trends here. Other companies wishing to apply this development method will doubtless follow the trend Apple has already set. If these companies proceed without any notion of what an open source developer sees as right and wrong, the trend is sure to die quickly.
Apple, Apple... (Score:4)
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.
Lame, just lame (Score:3)
--
Umm... (Score:4)
Re:i know how to respond (Score:3)
Witness Microsoft. It costs a bit to buy VS6, but if a developer can get it, he has all kinds of information and help at his disposal. And he doesn't have to worry about being attacked by Microsoft's lawyers, either. If he's good, Microsoft may even buy his product! What a deal!
You and I may not like all the stupid shareware and freeware applications - heck, some of them are downright useless. But this is spurring on developer interest and mindshare, and that's what an operating system needs in the long run to survive.
It's not just Steve! (Score:3)
I'm platform agnostic, but spent a great while in the company of Mac-users and this is true for just about every one I've ever met.
The sysadmin at the college where I was a volunteer webmaster? He would constantly go on and on about how great 'his' platform was and how superior it was over Wintel, and then in the next breath complain of all the conspiracies Microsoft was involved in to make sure that he and other Mac users were never able to play the good games or use any of the popular apps. Then he'd turn around and try to see how much warez he could upload to public servers without getting caught.
The graphic designer I worked with?
He would spend hours ranting about how our company's PC-using tech support area would abuse him because he was a Mac user, but then go on and on about the hardware superiority of the G3 over the eqivalent Pentium-II's at the time. Then he would fire off incindiary emails to the company president.
I *could* go on, but I think you get the point.
Re:For their own (Score:3)
I am the recipient of the cease and desist order. (Score:5)
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 [mailto]
Apple don't want their API's published (Score:3)
I don't think it's the fact that you can make other themes for your mac that they object to but rather that the themes project is, with it's open source, in effect publishing API's that Apple doesn't want published.
Re:What amazes me so much.... (Score:3)
You Get what you pay for. Apple hardware is high quality. Not some cheap OEM crap that Dell spits out.
The 3rd party memory that now doesn't work under the latest firmware was memory that did not match the specs that the machines should have had in the first place. There is still plenty of 3rd party modules that did work. Those people that got bit by this were the ones who went for the el cheapo sticks.
Yes please do the math. There is more to the processor than just the Mhz ratings! A 733Mhz G4 will beat a 1.5Ghz P4 in some tests (just like the P4 will beat the G4 for in other specs).
Apple is a company. Heaven forbid they would want to make money and defend themselves...oh my, can't have that. Open source this...open source that. Screw open source! Just give me quality software and I'll pay for it.
"The Funeral Procession"
Oh yeah...they've been saying that for years...sing a different tune the repetition is boring.
Do you think they'll sue me for copying the iMac? (Score:5)
They weren't trying for OSS acceptance. (Score:3)
I was quickly becoming an Apple fan when the whole MacOS X thing began. "Yes, Darwin is open source! We're thinking forward. Here, have our source!" It didn't take long to realize that this was all nonsense. Their motivations are the same as any other large corporate entity: they want to have things their way and they are not going to give an inch.
And here they are, stomping their feet and pouting. "We don't want anyone to change our interface! It's our interface, leave it alone! *pouting* Oh, and themes were our idea!" Is it any surprise?
This is simply marketing hype. [apple.com]
Huh? (Score:3)
Apple claims the editor enables third parties to copy its copyrighted trademark themes
I claim MS paint enables me to copy Apple's copyrighted trademarks. Just as DeCSS is a possible enabler to a crime, this program and thousands of other utilities can "enable" crime.
How can they possibly hope to have this stand up in court? Or are they hoping someone will just crumble rather than fight?