🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May4.052108.695@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
+
+ - Musical recordings (especially on digital media)
+ - Printed materials (thanks to photocopy technology)
+ - Audiovisual works (movies, broadcasts, etc.)

In each of these categories, the 'reproduction' media is licensed to
more than one company. In the case of photocopy processes Xerox was
reluctant to license it's process. When its first patent was up, a
number of companies moved in and carved out niches, low end,
specific problems, etc. Unfortunately, copyright does not have a
limitation time and so one cannot expect a similar expansion of the
competition in the area of desktops or other user interfaces.

Since I don't speak for the FSF, my personal view would allow  Apple
to retain some 'rights' as the primary developer, but would desire
Apple to license it's interface to non-apple hardware. If you use
'Dolby' recording you pay 'Dolby Systems' or who has the patent
these days for use of that technology. To find out who, how, and
how much particulars is a 'know' activity for 'Dolby' for Apple, who
knows? To use 'Un*x' you pay ATT 100K or so for SVR4 and umpty-ump
per binary(depending on you agreement). Apple has none of this.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu