Slashdot Log In
Apple Still Says No To Aqua-Like Themes
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Sep 27, 2001 09:48 PM
from the why-not-let-people-flatter-you dept.
from the why-not-let-people-flatter-you dept.
JoFo writes: "Eric Yang, creator of several Aqua-like themes and skins for GTK+, KDE, Mozilla, gkrellm, and others, was forced by Apple to take down all Aqua-related projects on his web site. It appears they went to his employer as a way to strong-arm him. He writes on his web site 'I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic?'" Apple seems at least to be consistent in objecting to nearly any non-Apple project that reminds the company of Aqua, so maybe this was just a matter of time.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Still Says No To Aqua-Like Themes
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 589 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Re:In All Honesty... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sharing digital stuff is not a zero-sum game. BSD is the Compatibility Fairy, spreading compatibility around by providing core stuff that you can build anything around and it will still be able to talk to other stuff. BSD licensed stuff is meant to be used by everyone, that's the point.
The most compatible part of Windows is its BSD TCP/IP stack. Is it good that Microsoft "stole" that code? Imagine how much better the Web would be if IE for Windows used Gecko. Then we would really have a compatible Web, and the Internet Appliance market would probably have a chance because they could put Gecko on top of a BSD TCP/IP stack and the Web would still "look like the Web" to a Windows user, with the same rendering that they see on Windows. You'd be able to run a Gecko-based browser on BSD and a page would look the same as on Windows. In these kinds of common areas, code that everyone can share without restriction really benefits everybody.
Now, when it comes to the distinctive graphical look of a software product that is the only competitor to Microsoft Windows in many, many markets and is just about to have its mainstream coming-out
I'm not defending lawyers or anything, and I know the guy in this article is skinning X-Windows, not Windows, but a guy who skins Windows XP to look like Mac OS X is not helping the free software community. Compare the proprietary components in Windows XP to their open Mac OS X counterparts and tell me which one you want your local artists and musicians running, which one you want your Grandma running. Even the BIOS-equivalent on the Mac is an IEEE standard, called OpenFirmware, which is also used by Sun and which has the cutest little Penguin icon that it uses to show bootable Linux volumes.
By the way
sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Aqua is not the only thing they have going for them in Mac OS X(.1), but it's a big thing; it's what differentiaates them from MS in screenshots, etc. If any system can look like theirs, they lose out. I know it's nice, I'd like it on my Linux desktop as well, but it's Apple's property and this is their right, so let's not act too surprised that they try and stop it.
Let us, however, ignore that Be never cared, QNX doesn't care, and MS really, really doesn't care (it probably even makes them laugh when a Linux WM has a Windows theme). Apple is 'special' in that they have to keep their lawyers fed or they start to go ambulance chasing when they get bored.
Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are ripping off the actual icon files then that's one thing. But making something very similar, though not identical, seems like another look and feel issue.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:5, Informative)
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act became effective in January of 1996. Apple lost it's "look and feel" case before that, I believe it was 1995.
Of course, had The Federal Trademark Dilution Act been in effect in 1984, Apple probably wouldn't be called Apple any more, since they would have lost the trademark dispute against Apple Records.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple settled that trademark dispute. They paid Apple Records lots of cash. This is all well and good.
They lost their "look and feel" case, but Microsoft had not bit-for-bit copied any of their artwork. Using identical key-commands is one thing. Using someone else's bitmaps is another. This is also all well and good.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Very different. Apple lost because they signed a bad license with MS and it was ruled that Apple had licensed their look and feel to MS. Not many people know, as part of the IE budle/investment agreement, MS had to pay Billions (it's unknown, but that is what Apple claimed MS owed them) in back payments to Apple for licenses and as far as I know is still paying Apple to this day.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft bought $120 Million in non-voting shares, promised to port Office and IE for awhile, and Apple said they'd make IE Mac OS's default browser.
Apple didn't need the money (they have a few billion in the bank themselves), they just needed to show investors that Microsoft wasn't going to kill them. Microsoft got to keep some competition around, which was helpful during their little stay in court.
Since then, IE has won the browser war, Apple is in a great (for them) position in the market, Mac OS X is out and growing strong, and Microsoft has not split and has quietly sold that $120mil of non-voting shares.
Billions in secret back payments? It's a nice story, but no.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:4, Informative)
This skin issue is different; nobody's licensed the look & feel from apple.
Apple will defend its territory (Score:5, Insightful)
If you see a PC across the room, you barely notice it. If you see a Mac across a room, you notice. Nothing else looks like an iMac, a G3/G4 tower, an iBook, etc. Apple wants to be visible, and that makes sense.
The same goes for Aqua. Aqua looks like nothing else - and Apple wants to keep it that way. If Aqua themes became popular, then screenshots from Apple computers would not stand out as much - and therefore, Apple would not burn itself into peoples heads nearly as clearly.
Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Oh give me a break. If there's that much demand for an Aqua look-and-feel "theme" for Mozilla then somebody will put in the time to add native Quartz calls [mozilla.org] to Mozilla. Adding a silly "theme" is not the way to do this when it's on the native platform of Aqua. Besides, how would you do transparencies with a theme? An Aqua "theme" would be a hack for these purposes.
If Mozilla were changed to use native aqua screen widgets, then the only thing needed to make it look like it "fits in" is a very simple theme for the menubar buttons -- a theme that Apple wouldn't complain about at all and it would be 100% original artwork.
- j
This is silly (Score:3, Funny)
Just name it something else already.
If you get into trouble, throw some prior work, like your favorite drinking glass into evidence.
Re:Um, excuse me, but . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Good business strategy: learn from past mistakes.
F-bacher
Re:Um, excuse me, but . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no.
The judge did not say to Apple "you waited too long", nor any variation on that idea. First, the judge threw out Apple's claim that Apple could own a nebulous concept called "look and feel"; the judge required Apple to list specific items where MS had infringed. Then the judge went down the list, and struck out any item that was covered by Microsoft's agreement with Apple. (You know, the one where Apple agreed not to sue MS. Of course Apple did sue MS, one of the reasons I am not a fan of Apple.) Anyway, there were only 12 items on Apple's whole list that were not covered by the agreement; the judge then went down this list of 12 items and struck down all of those that Apple didn't own, which was 12: i.e. all of them. With literally nothing of Apple's case left, the judge ruled in favor of MS.
Now, when Xerox sued Apple for stealing, the judge did indeed rule "you waited too long".
why is this such a big deal? (Score:4, Flamebait)
Of all things to fight about, it seems that the appearance of a desktop should be the least of our worries. If Apple wants to keep their Aqua desktop to themselves, fine. Let's be creative and make something better. There are many themes out there that rival Apple in functionality and appearance.
Re:why is this such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I am not upset about anybody "wanting" anything. (It's a free country, you can want whatever you feel like wanting.) I am upset about archaic intellectual property laws and the level of corporate control over our society.
Is he suprised he didn't get paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am kind of peeved at apple not allowing themes. Maybe they're just holding back on their own theming system for sometime before Macrh 23rd of next year. I guess they're philosophy makes sense: they want people to look at a Mac OS X machine and know for sure that it's a Mac OS X machine. Plus, if it's a theming system not from apple, future updates could hose the system over (The move from 10.0.4 to 10.1 to one
F-bacher
Share and enjoy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is he suprised he didn't get paid?
As I understood his comments, he was only pointing it out that Apple is all to happy to take input from the community, but doesn't allow the same community the freedom of artistic expression.
Re:Is he suprised he didn't get paid? (Score:4, Informative)
A big problem that became evident with themes on Mac OS 8 and 9 (and maybe soon on Windows XP) is that they break really easily when you have a large and diverse GUI application platform that already exists before you start skinning the OS. Out of any ten Mac apps, you would find one or two of them wouldn't skin right because they had custom UI elements or design elements that were meant to go with the default look. I heard that Microsoft was trying to drop themes from Windows XP for this reason, but they are in there in some limited fashion, apparently.
The Aqua guidelines warn application developers not to assume that the GUI will always look like it does now, so Apple is trying to keep their options open for later. Maybe for Aqua II, and maybe for themes. With all the work they've done for Mac OS X, I think they probably could live with the idea of putting themes on hold for a while. Mac OS 8 was on the cutting-edge of skinning interfaces, but it also got to see a lot of the problems with the process. Mac OS X version 11 might be the place to work that shit out. They can sell a journaling file system to pros and themes to consumers and kids.
The brand, the law, and the individual. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if a collection of friends decide to create an Aqua-like theme and distribute it, what's that to prevent Microsoft from doing the same?
Clearly Apple is in competition with Microsoft, and it doesn't have any particular desire to permit Microsoft to make use of it's so-called user interface innovations.
Apple clearly built the Aqua theme, and spent a lot of time and money developing it into something that Apple hopes to be a brand-identifier. For a 3rd party to create a very similar branding, and then release it in such a way that Microsoft could use it flys in the face of why Apple developed the interface to begin with: To outpace Microsoft in interface design.
So although I feel for the individuals who have spent so much effort to clone the Aqua interface, it is also easy to appreciate Apple's stance on this issue.
Microsoft's Luna is sort of a Rip of Apple's Aqua (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing. Microsoft has already done this, in a way. The user interface for windows XP (called Luna) seems to take a lot of inspiration from Mac OS X without directly copying it.
And look at this shot. [apple.com] of Mac OS X:
Now look at these shots [brighthand.com] of the next version of windows CE (Pocket PC 2002).
Notice any similarities in the upper right of the screen?
As to whether this is legal (or would be if MS didn't happen to have billions of dollars), IANAL.
Qt/Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
While I have suspected Qt/Mac will not be GPL for other reasons, I believe this is a really strong reason as to why it won't be. If it were GPL, then any coder could just snag the style and compile with X11. Why mess with pixmap styles when you have close to the real-deal as a rendering engine?
Re:Qt/Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
Q. When Qt comes to Mac will Linux and Windows users be able to use the Aqua theme?
A. No, they will not be able to. Apple is very protective of the Aqua design, so we will not be implementing it on other platforms. Apple has offered their help to promote Qt/Mac, and we don't feel that going against their wishes will help them or us.
Honestly, I don't get why free software enthusiasts aren't embarassed to keep whining about this. Apple created this, let them have it. Either come up with something better or stop snickering about Microsoft and 'innovation'.
Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Ferrari is NOT the only company that can paint its cars red.
There are limits to claiming 'themes' as a trademark.
KFG
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck prosecuting people who "steal" your ip. Even if the red is the only board that previously existed with the "exact shade."
IP is only ip to the extent that it can be effectively protected. That is lesson number one in the ip "biz."
What you CAN do is define a logo that contains the words "Ferrari Red" and copyright, and trademark * THAT LOGO.* The copyright on the logo confers no protections whatsoever on the words contained within that logo, nor on the color they refer to. So, you can only buy "Ferrari Red" paint from Ferrari because Ferrari controls the name *Ferrari*, and thus the paint name and logo, not because they control the actual light wavelength reflected by the paint.
This is precisely the reason there are so many doofy names for colors. You *cannot protect the color.* So you make up a NAME for it you can protect.
And of course there is the fact that there is really no such thing as Ferrari Red in the first place. Ferrari has used literally dozens of different shades of red. There is also the fact that Ferrari didn't even invent the phrase, and it was in widespread public use before Ferrari ever used it. It was, in fact, forced on them through public use. Prior art.
You are also, of course, aware that virtually every Ferrari, even those painted the *same* color, are in fact different colors? What is the *exact* shade of "Ferrari Red"? How is it defined? How is its use defended when it isn't true that it can only be obtained from authorized Ferrari repairers because any dumb schlub at the paint store can simply mix up unlimited supplies of it for you? You can do it yourself on your desktop if you wish.
Are you even begining to get my point, which was *there are limits to trademarkability?*
What's more, a trademark or copyright *does not* confer title. This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of this branch of ip law. In truth *title* can only be granted by a JUDGE reviewing the facts of a particular challange.
Ferrari *owns* the shape of its cars because a JUDGE, reviewing an actual case has *said so.*
Oh, it was an American judge by the way, thus in truth Ferrari only owns the shape of its cars in America and those countries that will respect that American decision.
Trademark and copyright are not the same as registering your car. The fact of the matter is that you can have copyright and trademark certificates in hand and STILL not have the rights they seem to confer on you.
KFG
End of an era, things are ever changing... (Score:3, Troll)
Apple has changed, Apple is no longer the company it once was. Aside from the fruit-shaped logo and the menubar running across the top of the screen, Apple Computer is pretty much a modern consumerish NeXT. I've used Apple machines since my former job bought a small group of Lisas in 1983. While I mainly used Amiga and Windows machines at home, I had grown to love the Mac and it's various shaped beigeish gray enclosures. Over the years Apple had made one hellofa a platform. By 1992 we were using Quadra 950 and 800 machines stuffed full of ram, video and graphics nubus cards, and all sorts of wild accelerators. The MacOS (System 7.1 at the time) had no problem with our multiple monitors or our 640x480@30fps streams of mjpeg compressed video. Color correction, TrueType fonts, postscript, ethernet networking (both TCP/IP and AppleTalk/Ethertalk) worked great right out of the box. Macs in that era were ungodly expensive and worth every penny. Perhaps they still are today, though in a slightly different way.
Then came 1993 when Apple start seeding their early PowerPC machines, and eventually began selling them in 1994. Apple forgot how to make great hardware. They began to rely on the CPU to do everything. Sure the PowerPC had some great oomph, but it alone could not make up for poor design elsewhere. Luckily, the second generation of PowerPC based macs in 1995 (7500, 7600, 8500, 9500) were **very** improved, yet still nothing like the Quadras were back in their day. Eventually the third generation (G3) of Macs shipped, first in beigish gray boxes and later in the funky blue&white swing-down enclosure. By now Apple was bring back the performance, incorporating USB and Firewire. But what they had was nothing much more than a modern PC with a different CPU and OS. The G4 machines with their mighty PowerPC 74X0 CPUs have allowed us to do some pretty exciting things with the CPU alone, but again, it's nothing too special.
So what has Apple done to differentiate itself? When Steve Jobs returned he and his gang of NeXT thugs took the marketing and software angle. They introduced a funky new interface that looked nothing like MacOS, NeXTstep, or Windows. They created some cool consumer and pro apps (iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro) that made use of the G4 architecture and other features of their machines. They've also become far more mainstream with their retail stores, online ordering, and strict warranty policies.
It comes to me as no shock that Apple wants to defend it's GUI look-and-feel. I love the Macs I use at work, but to be honest, Apple is always on the brink of disaster. Consider the following: PC makers, along with motherboard designers integrate more cutting edge features that ever, and do so with great stability and success. Software makers, especially Microsoft, cater to both the newbie while still offering powerful professional features (much like FontSync and ColorSync) all while maintaining tight integration with said PC makers. Drop the price a bit, woo some users. Build some cool enclosures that both look nice and are a dream to work with. Boom. No more need for Apple.
If you think about it, this is already happening. And fast. As every month ticks by, Apple has to work harder, better, and faster to keep up. It should be no surprise that Apple wants to defend one of the very things that differentiates itself from the commodity Wintel PC market.
Apple has done some great things over the past 25 years, perhaps more so than any other company short of maybe SiliconGraphics and IBM. I applaud their efforts and love working with their products. I also wish them the best.
Parallel Universe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's the one with $4.2 billion in the bank, who has laid off a total of 50 people since the PC industry downturn, and (with one exception) has profitable every quarter since Q1 1998. Contrast this to all the mass layoffs throughout the industry. There is tremendous value in the company.
PC makers, along with motherboard designers integrate more cutting edge features that ever, and do so with great stability and success
Stability? Which industry are you talking about? Certainly not the one with Gateway, Compaq, VA and HP in it.
Apple has some of the best hardware overall in the industry. The were the first to ship DVD-R, first with built-in wireless antennas, first (and only, as far as I can tell) with gigabit ethernet standard on desktop hardware, and the legacy-free aspect of the iMac certainly drove USB acceptance. Their machines are quite energy efficient, and in some cases, fanless. Their towers are the easiest to manipulate of any manufacturer I've seen. There are weak spots, like the bus speed, but there is plenty to appreciate as well.
Software makers, especially Microsoft, cater to both the newbie while still offering powerful professional features (much like FontSync and ColorSync) all while maintaining tight integration with said PC makers
Tight intergration with PC makers? Is that intergration as in "include Netscape and we'll revoke your license" or as in "this driver keeps giving me error messages?"
Build some cool enclosures that both look nice and are a dream to work with. Boom. No more need for Apple.
It's just that simple, eh?
It should be no surprise that Apple wants to defend one of the very things that differentiates itself from the commodity Wintel PC market.
You're right, it's not. The legal system says Apple has to virgiously defend its ideas at every point along the way, or loses the right to do so later. I don't think Apple's really all that concerned about people buying a machine to run Linux instead of a Mac just because E has an Aqua theme.
But here's something else I'm wondering about -- why are people still creating Aqua themes? Apple has asked repeatedly for people to stop. Why does this continue? Surely theme creators can come up with something new. Why not just respect Apple's wishes? It's not like OpenSSH, where you need replication for compatibility reasons.
You don't even have to look at it from a legal perspective since they haven't actually sued anyone. What if somebody asked you to remove a desktop picture they created from your theme package? Wouldn't you do it? Is this all that different?
- Scott
apple passing up free advertising op. (Score:3)
On one hand, I can see how Apple might be a bit sensitive about people copying their look and feel, especially after loosing their Windows battle with Microsoft in the late 80's.
On the other hand, if Apple were smart, they'd parly the desire for Aqua themes into Mac sales. A simple and direct ad campaign, "why settle for a cheap immitation when you can have the real thing..."
Perhaps instead of shutting down Aqua themes, require that they include an icon and link back to Apple
Hmmm
Apple legal (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I think Apple should sue Microsoft for stealing the rubber ducky and putting it in Windows XP! That's just SO WRONG!! it's Apple's ducky, and those punks at Microsoft think they can just horizontally flip it and call it theirs. It doesn't work that way! I'd go so far as to say the rubber ducky should be Apple's mascot.
Wait. I think I heard from somewhere that Microsoft did remove the rubber ducky. Any truth to this?
Re:Why the Mozilla theme? (Score:4, Informative)
* HTML4 requires that you be able to make listboxes with a tree image in the background. How would you do that on Windows, where you don't have access to the widget code? Mozilla would be forced to use the common subset of what each OS's listbox provides, which would be a very limited listbox.
* Native widgets sometimes have subtle restrictions. For example, Windows 98 will become unstable if you create several hundred native listboxes. (It usually doesn't crash, but toolbars will stop appearing in new windows; I consider that to be instability.) Internet Explorer suffers from this problem every time I get mod points on Slashdot, but open several top-level stories in different windows before I notice.
* Native widgets may have less subtle restrictions, such as limits on the amount of text a textbox can contain.
Sosumi (Score:3, Funny)
SOSUMI
Next time, make a contract. (Score:4, Troll)
No, Eric Yang, it is not ironic. What it is going on is very simple. You are unilaterally, and retroactively, trying to impose some sort of bargain, agreement or understanding upon Apple. One that that they had no prior notice of, much less agreed to in advance.
When you, Eric Yang, tested cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell, you did so without any prior expressed or even reasonably understood conditions, understandings, agreement, or contract. You gave a gift of your own free will. Apple had absolutely NO reasonable notice that you were doing your testing pursuant to your secret, unilateral, unexpressed subjective belief that if you did such work, you could "of course" help yourself to the intellectual property embodied in Apple's themes.
The solution next time is quite simple. Be honest and up-front. Contact Apple before you do the work and offer an explicit, clearly express contract: "I will do 'X' if you let me do 'Y.'" If Apple refuses your offer, then simply do not do the work.
What you should not do is give a gift -- or what every reasonable person would construe as a gift -- of service while holding a secret, undisclosed, subjective, unilateral understanding that the "gift" is in fact conditional, and then whine and complain when your previously undisclosed condition has not been satisfied.
Speaking as a UI designer (Score:5, Insightful)
Developers in general don't have to deal with criticism from VPs or C*Os about the validity of how their stored procedures are set up. You don't have to sit behind a one-way mirror and watch a user rip the result of the last 3 months of your life to shreds.
As far as Apple and Aqua goes, you have to realize what it is that Apple really sells. They provide a whole experience that spans hardware, software and everyhting else. They invested millions upon millions of dollars in developing Aqua so I don't think it's a big suprise when they see someone mucking with their stuff. I think they are less worried about "competition" than they are about their work being "diluted" and offered on a system that doesn't work as elegantly.
What is everyone's great desire to rip off Apple's look anyway? Make something better if you're the expert.
Apple can be beaten (Score:3, Informative)
You cannot copyright a "look" or a "Feel." Perhaps a "Feel" can be patented as it involves a process or a series of processes. But a non-specific look cannot be copyrighted.
First, I would take the approach that making these themes can be a form of satire and is protected speech. The expression can be as deep or twisted as you like.
But only specific works can be copyrighted. Simply making a gui "shiney, blue and semi-transparent-looking" shouldn't be considered enough. Prior to the creation of Mac's Apple, I am certain other artists have created graphics with shiney, blue and semi-transparent-looking things in their works in the past. If Apple can sue based on that amount of similarity, the surely people who created their art prior to Apple's Aqua can sue the hell out of Apple.
But there must be hundreds of cases where copyright suits were lost on the grounds that the work in question weren't similar enough or were protected speech. This attack on creativity and free speech should be defeated for the priciple alone.
Apple's lawyers are just trying to earn their pay and justify their jobs. I hold them blameless. Apple believes they are protecting their stockholders' interests. I can blame them only for their lack of conscience and good sense.
Thoughts?
clone themes are useful ... (Score:3, Insightful)
this works well, and stops me hitting the window menu every time i try to close an app (or worse). they don't have to look identical, just so long as they work the same on the subconcious level we use switches on (what stops you having to think "which is the indicator switch" in your car).
ironically, now that i'm using the (unthemable) macos x, i am confused as all hell again because i'm used to macos 8.6. shite
apple should realise that user interface should be more flexible (and easy to restore, if you want to enforce consistency), and that there are legitimate reasons for using an aqua or macos workalike on a non-mac platform.
what's the best way to report improvements to apple for bugs and the like? i've got a call sheet here
Double Standard (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't mean to start a holy war or anything, but after reading the majority of the posts thus far I'm confused. While I agree with most people on here, that Apple has a right to defend its design from being copied, is there a double standard here between Apple and Microsoft? I just can't understand why when Microsoft does something like this it's the "Evil Empire" but when Apple does the same it's defended by the community. Then again, I guess I shouldn't try to understand the mindset of a group of people that post goat sex links and racist jokes more than anything else.
Why are people pissed at Apple? (Score:4, Flamebait)
Microshaft stole thier implementation of Xerox's "desktop" operating system and ruined thier OS business.
Then a clone maker came along for IBM hardware and ruined the margin on making machines.
Apple has been screwed by others since the day computers became available to the people.
Regardless of my (or your) opinions of thier hardware, software, OSes, and so on, if you were Apple, would you not fight with every single fiber of you being to protect everything you could?
They are not going after people for money... they are simply saying "we made Aqua, at consideralbe expense (and again, I don't care what you think of it... it cost them heaps of money to develop) so please don't give it away to other platforms".
Windows XP, Linux, or whatever does not DESERVE a GUI as nice as Mac OS X. My mom can buy a crappy box with Win XP and be frustraed by it. Having an OS X look alike theme could amke her biased agiant Macs. My mom would have no f*ing clue how to use Linux, so if see ever had to use a machine with Linux installed, and it had an Aqua theme, she might think that So X was hard to use. I *did* buy my mom an iMac, and installed OS X on it. She damn well humps the machine she loves it so much.
So porting one is not only an infrigement of copyright, but just plain wrong as well.
How sad--for Apple. (Score:3, Interesting)
In any case, it's not worth worrying about. Aqua looks slick, but there are lots of nice looking themes, many of them more usable than Aqua. Rather than trying to clone Aqua, perhaps it would be better to port more free themes to MacOS X and give it a fresh, non-Apple look.
HE USED THE APPLE LOGO! (Score:5, Informative)
Look and feel is ok, just don't use the TRADEMARKED logo.
Update (Score:4, Informative)
Want some cheese to go with that whine? [everything2.com] Didn't this guy steal all the widgets from Omniweb?
How much helping of writing a library did you do? Bug-fixes shouldn't count. I think Apple is great with developers in OS X, short of bringing out Steve Ballmer to chant it. I wouldn't expect Apple to lend a hand with Mozilla, they have not a lot of interest in it.
As for Mozilla with an Aqua UI - it's a great idea - check out http://sourceforge.net/projects/qbati2/ [sourceforge.net]
Theme.org, listen (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux doesn't deserve pretty themes (RANT) (Score:4, Informative)
UPDATE on this story (Friday) (Score:3, Informative)
Apple has apparently worked things out with Eric Yang, whom we earlier today reported was prevented from developing an Aqua front-end for Mozilla and Netscape [simweb.net]: "What Apple objected to was not Aquafying Mozilla, but rather the way I was doing it via emulation, thus not giving Mozilla users a pure Aqua experience. Apple is willing to provide information for creating real Aqua experience for Mozilla. Right now, my efforts are focused on an Aqua interface for Tenon's iTools, so work on Mozilla for the moment is in abeyance."
Re:Eric Yang, Sociopath? (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, I would think that misusing the word "sociopath" would be far more serious than misusing the word "ironic".
Re:Eric Yang, Sociopath? (Score:4, Funny)
Translation:
"...however, I am a card-carrying tool..."
Christ, I hate MENSA. There's nothing quite like a Smarter Than Everybody Else Club.