Apple has every right to protect their intellectual property, just like everyone else. They happen to have more Jafos: Their legal department.

GH, Gui (graphical user interface) was used 'for public' first by microsoft, Dos isn't a GUI, the first commercial one was windows 3.11

Could be wrong but...

For all those who still don't know the history of GUIs, I direct you to this article: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,9297,00.html

It's somewhat apt to this thread that Apple were there way before Microsoft.

Hmm, every time I read something about GUIs I clearly miss GEOS for the C-64. Was the first GUI I actually used...

These (infinitely recurrent) discussion always remind me of the "but when I play artist X' song one tone out of phase, I have created a new work" argument. Never quite know how what that one resulted in.

At any rate, the whole rip issue is moot for the big crowd out there. They just want Mickey Mouse skins and what not and truly do not care whether it are rips or not (for a variety of reasons).

Nuff already doomgaze! You jealous of my Mac or somethin?

The only flaming I did kona, was of Hus.
The rest of the thread was thought out.

If you thought of my first post as a flame, you've never seen me on a full out attack then.

Ask DaWebMassa, I can be cruel.

And no, I hate macs, and I have a constant reminder. (still have a small burn scar from having a TiBook on my lap while troubleshooting it and it burning me.)

Bravo the rest of you.
Now to find a way to keep Hus and Kona out of threads so they can proceed intelligently

If you delv into the history and legalize of it, MAC Clones are only allowed by Apple starting back around 1995 or so. They gave permission for clones to be built. There is a difference even if many wish to attempt to ignore it...

I do believe that apple did allow clones back then, but not anymore. They have since ended the ability to clone a mac.

And Macintosh does consider using their designs a rip, and they are the original author so no RIPs of Macintosh designs should be excepted. Apple copyrighted every piece of their os they possibly could. The icons, title bars, logos, even the Genie animation effect are all copyrighted, and legally can not be used without permission from them. And trust me, you will never get permission.

Interesting, but that also explains why they've unleashed the Evil Army(tm) (read: lawyers) on various copycat applications that have sprouted up for Windows.

So if they have everything copyrighted, a "considerable" likeness is considered a rip, no matter if the artist made it themselves or copy and pasted from a screenshot. And therefore is 'against the rules' here for lack of better term.

But yet, its OK because people already rip off OS designs for skinning and have been for quite some time now? I mean thats like saying racial discrimination is ok because its been around for hundreds of years to be honest.

Where do you draw the line?
When Apple comes wanting blood?

In my opinion (have I really stated it yet? no) why should someone who accidently makes a skin thats similar in appearance to a high profile skinner's idea get torn apart on the boards, yet something that a large company has copyrighted and requires permission/licensing to use be freely ripped? Whats the difference? The skin in question was part of a premium pack... aka.. it costs money. Mac OS's cost money.
[Message Edited]