Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/linux/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.96/text1845.txt

Text File | 1996-07-25 | 1.8 KB | 40 lines

>>>>> "Sandman" == Sandman  <[e-mail]> writes:
In article <[e-mail]> Sandman <[e-mail]> writes:


    Sandman> I know that there is some legal problem with ARDI simply
    Sandman> integrating the finder into executor (which I think is
    Sandman> dumb, because Apple could increase its market by wider
    Sandman> support if they did allow use of it.  They are shooting
    Sandman> themselves in the foot.), but would it be possible for
    Sandman> ARDI to copy it a little more closely, at least in
    Sandman> appearance?  Maybe this is a bit simplistic of me, but I
    Sandman> thought I'd ask.

Making our Browser more Finder-like would open us up to a potential
"look-and-feel" lawsuit.  That may sound weird since when we run apps,
they appear exactly like they would on a Mac, but that's OK, because
Apple doesn't own the look and feel of the apps in question.  If
anyone does it's the people who wrote those apps and the
purcasers/licensees fo those apps.

    Sandman>   Also, I'm sure its all legal again, but would it be
    Sandman> possible in future versions to include some of the
    Sandman> software that comes from apple, like the comm toolbox and
    Sandman> MacTCP, or even Quick time?  I'm sure that the losers at
    Sandman> apple are much to stubborn to do so, but has the
    Sandman> possiblility been explored?  It would just be a nice
    Sandman> extra to throw in, IMHO.

Without cutting a deal with Apple we can't include any of their
software with Executor.  However, it doesn't take a deal with Apple in
order for us to be able to make Executor work with their software.  So
in future versions of Executor it is more likely that you'll be able
to mix and match ARDI software with Apple software.  There are still
tricky legal issues involved here, but we are careful to stay squeaky
clean.

--Cliff
[e-mail]