I'm sure the same would go for icons and UI elements from Mac OS, as well.

I can see OS 'ports' as both a perk and a problem. On the one hand they are good advertising for the look and feel of a newer/different OS, but at the same time it allows people to *have* that look and feel without buying it.

I understand, though, that people want specifically targeted shortcuts, and to do that you need icons for the apps. My position has been that we should make generic icons, 'paint program', 'browser', etc., instead of borrowing the specific ones from Adobe or Netscape. Alas, that isn't what people want. I can understand it, but I'm not sure about it.

There are policies on every site that I disagree with, and this is the one here that gives me pause. Just as allowing people to cut and paste stolen photography harms wallpaper art as a whole, I think that using other people's interface and icons as building blocks for our skins and themes is no better.

When I gripe to someone that makes 'babe' wallpapers, I always tell them that Devart is full of 'babes' that take photos of themselves and gladly collaborate and share them with other artists. There's no need to steal. Here, we have UI designers, Iconists, etc., who are also happy to share their work with others. I'm not sure that there is a need to 'borrow' when you can do the work honestly, and promote other people's work at the same time through collaboration.

I think the problem with Microsoft's policy on Icon use is [as usual] it is specific/general legalese which unfortunately does not address Skinning in any way specifically, perhaps due to their Legal Departments ignorance of the field.
If skinning of an MS OS is seen as an addendum to the OS itself, and in particular, Windowblinds having the blessings of MS as a legitimate add-on, then skins made for it could very well be 'beyond' the wording of that policy.
It would be nice if MS were 'industry-specific' with the legalities of their icon use.
According to those terms, when Windowblinds calls up the program's icon [like IE] and displays it on my WB skin to indicate what window it is...that's 'not allowed'.
Hardly....it is the same OS running the same IE6 with the same icon, but it was MY code inclusion that made it show, so that's 'wrong'.

Until the Legal Dept of Microsoft directly communicates any limitations directly relating to skinning and customizing, no-one will 'really' know what 'goes'...

baker...don't forget though, that the 'purchase' of the OS only gives you rights to the icon's use, and not its actual 'ownership'.
The same applies to an Architect's drawings.
A client pays the Architect to create the drawing, however its copyright remains exclusively with the Architect and the client is ONLY allowed to use the drawing for its intended purpose - building the structure. Even framing the drawing and hanging it on a wall is not an expressed use and violates copyright...

What I personally got from the policy statement was that generally using the icons in anyway other than for learning documentation was not allowed.

If you've got a link to an existing icon or have it as a shortcut, you’re not actually 'using' it, you’re just linking to it.

The same with the WindowBlinds example Jafo mentioned... your simply allowing the existing icon to be displayed next to or in the skin - it's not actually being 'used' and it's not specifically part of the skin, it's just an existing part of the GUI.

Actually using the icons in software menus, skin ports, icon ports, icon packages, icon re-colourings, icon re-releases, alterations, "artwork" or design elements etc... I believe they consider to be illegal according to this policy summary.

So is it illegal to 'use' them for whatever you want?... in short; yes, it seems it is.

But would Microsoft actually bother to follow up on any specific case... I seriously doubt it to be honest. But you never know... Apple have walked that road a few times already