🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5094@utah-cs.UUCP> t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) writes:
>Still further on comes the crux of the issue: "Developers
>who are considering modifying the interface should follow this rule of
>thumb: In general, you don't want the users to do something they're
>familiar with and have it produce an unexpected effect. But you can have
>the users learn to do something new. When you do this, however, remember
>that the 'something new' is usually a derivative of Apple's interface and,
>by copywrite law, also belongs to Apple"; and finally the coup de grace
>(except, as you will soon see, they shot themselves in the foot with this
>one): "When you want to port a product to a non-Apple system, you should
>first discuss it with Apple. Apple will review the proposed interface and
>suggest ways it should be changed to avoid violating Apple's copywrite".

I also find this intolerably ridiculous. I would be very interested to
hear from those with legal experience. Can Apple get away with this?
Many companies seem to be ignoring this (Aldus, MicroSoft, for instance).
It seems ridiculous that Apple can claim credit for the creative work
of the developers.

This posting is in the hopes that there is strength in numbers. What
Apple needs to realize is that this attitude will stop developers from
using the Mac for their original programming with the intent of later
porting. Instead, they will develop for the PC first, then port to the Mac
(if at all). Apple certainly can't claim to be the "technology leader"
under these circumstances. I'm sure Apple is concerned about keeping hold
of their user interface work and doesn't want to see the MS-DOS world
benefiting from work that Apple did, so it's a sticky issue. Still, the
"derivative" statement sure seems bogus. Apple seems to be taking credit
for everything anyone does on the Mac.

Robert Gardner