Please cool down and stop overreacting.
Well your statement, which - very possibly without any bad intention - turned around the historical facts, so admirably matched that notion that occasionally pops up also on this list ... namely that notion that everything proprietary is an attack on one's freedom. And that *is* paranoid.
Nevertheless my response was meant mainly sarcastic. And you have to admit that your post was not at all uncertain - you were very positive in your statement ...
W/r to your claim "...basically, Xerox sold Apple the concept in return for Apple shares...": In my book that's alternative facts. Being allowed to look at something does not exactly establish ownership, copyright, usage rights or even the right to copy something. The single correct part of that part of your statement is "...the Xerox management [...] completely failed to see the potential of a GUI"
I guess that's a pov issue. Jobs made a deal with Xerox to get information about the stuff they're developing. And (according to the account of one of the Xerox scientists) Jobs did not hide at all that he thought the concept to be a gold mine. (see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ferle2Uovks) Still Xerox gave him access to a lot of details. Is that stealing? You tell me ...
And I suggest we either leave it at that or we take the conversation off the list.
Best, Robert _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
